Recompute the audit digest from a presented lineage (never trusts the embedded hash) and report whether it matches a job this hive ran.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audit_json | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals key behaviors: always recomputes digest (never trusts hash) and compares to a job's digest. Does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or potential errors, but the core behavior is well disclosed.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loads the action and key behavioral trait. Appropriate length for the tool complexity.
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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It mentions what the tool does and hints at the return type ('report whether it matches'). Could be slightly improved by noting prerequisites (e.g., job existence) or potential edge cases.
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 has one string parameter with 0% description coverage. Description adds that it is a 'presented lineage', giving some context beyond the parameter name. However, it does not specify format, structure, or constraints, which would be needed to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the action: recompute audit digest from a lineage and compare to a job's digest. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the recomputation behavior and trust model ('never trusts the embedded hash').
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage when verifying an audit digest, but does not mention when to avoid it or if other tools (like audit_job) might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: auditing, describing agents, checking job status, listing solvers, solving jobs, and verifying audits. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., audit_job, describe_agent). The naming is clear and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for an orchestrator server, covering essential operations without unnecessary bloat or missing core functionality.
The tool surface covers agent description, solver listing, job execution, status checking, auditing, and verification. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to list all jobs, but the core lifecycle is complete.