ScopeProof

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the $0.01 cost, determinism, the three possible verdicts, an Ed25519-signed receipt, and four explicit boundaries of what the tool does not do.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cost, then the return values, then the boundary constraints. Dense and largely waste-free, with the negative constraints earning their place by preventing misuse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Return values are described well enough that a missing output schema is not fatal, but for a three-parameter tool with nested objects and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the approval parameter and the expected shapes of authority/action undefined. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three nested-object parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It loosely maps 'one proposed action' and 'one supplied authority envelope' to the action and authority params, but gives no shape/syntax detail and never mentions the approval parameter at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: a deterministic comparison of one proposed action against one supplied authority envelope, with explicit output states. It clearly distinguishes itself from a generic approval/execution tool, though it does not name or route against its siblings scopeproof.preflight or scopeproof.verify_receipt.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through four explicit non-capabilities (does not authenticate the issuer, grant permission, replace host approval, or execute/fetch the target), which draws useful boundaries. However, there is no positive 'use this when' guidance and no comparison to preflight or verify_receipt to select among the siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it is free, and it does not return an authorization verdict—both beyond annotation scope. This enriches behavioral understanding without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies a key limitation. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three nested object parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what to provide for the parameters, what a successful response looks like, or what errors might occur. The annotations cover safety but not usage details, so the description falls far short of what an agent needs to call this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description gives no information about the parameters 'action', 'approval', or 'authority'. The schema only states they are objects, so an agent has no idea what to pass. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, matching the lowest tier.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (validation) and resource (structural and secret-safety), and explicitly distinguishes itself by saying 'Does not return an authorization verdict.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_action that likely return verdicts, meeting the highest bar for purpose clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: use for free structural and secret-safety checks, not for authorization verdicts. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the 'Does not return an authorization verdict' clause signals when to avoid it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds that the verification is cryptographic and free, which hints at a safe, stateless operation, but it does not describe success/failure behavior, response shape, or any constraints. With annotations covering the safety profile, a mid score is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. The key verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a one-parameter verification function with no output schema, so the description should clarify what the verification returns and what a valid receipt looks like. It does neither. The agent is left without enough context to know how to interpret the result or handle validation failures.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the 'receipt' parameter. It provides only the phrase 'ScopeProof authorization receipt,' which adds slight context but does not specify the expected format, encoding, or origin of the receipt. This is insufficient to confidently construct a correct input.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete operation ('cryptographic verification') on a specific resource ('ScopeProof authorization receipt'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as check_action or preflight, so it stops short of a top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use verify_receipt versus check_action or preflight. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.