agent-notary

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. Discloses idempotency and commit_hash construction, but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or success/failure outcomes.

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 with format specifications. Extremely concise, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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?

Description explains commit_hash derivation, deadline format, and context linking, but leaves nonce and committer undocumented. Has an output schema but does not reference it. Incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning for commit_hash, deadline, and context, but nonce and committer remain unexplained (just names). Adds some value but not fully compensatory.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('commit to a deliverable') and the resource, with specific format details (commit_hash, deadline). Distinguishes from siblings like reveal and verify by emphasizing 'BEFORE handover'.

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?

Implies timing ('BEFORE handover') and idempotency, but does not explicitly state when to use commit vs alternatives like commitment_status or list_commitments. No exclusions or conditional guidance provided.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that salt/digest stay hidden pre-reveal, which is a key behavioral trait. This helps the agent know what data is not returned, but could mention other behaviors like idempotency or error states.

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 very short (12 words) and front-loaded, but it omits important information like the action verb. It is concise but at the cost of clarity.

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?

Although there is an output schema (not shown in the input), the description does not mention what the tool returns or error scenarios. For a single-parameter read operation, it's minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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?

Parameter commitment_id is required but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter's role or format, but it only says 'Current record for a commitment'.

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 says 'Current record for a commitment' which implies retrieval but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'pre-reveal' state, but the purpose is not immediately clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_commitments, commit, or reveal. The context signals show sibling tools, but the description provides no differentiation or usage hints.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect profile, permissions, or context limitations. For a zero-parameter introspection tool, the risk is low, so a middle 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?

At six words, the description is extremely concise and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, and the main action and target are front-loaded.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides the essential information about what the tool returns. It is somewhat vague about the exact meaning of 'capabilities' and 'input contract', but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation to provide. The description correctly avoids adding parameter details; the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Return', and identifies the resource as 'capabilities and input contract', clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_agent or list_agents, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agent or list_agents. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it should be selected.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description is the main behavioral disclosure. It communicates the operation is a lookup (read-only), and explicitly covers the success return fields and the NotFound outcome. It does not mention auth or error details, but the core behavioral contract is clearly stated.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the question it answers, and the result contract. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple and has an output schema, so the return-value description is adequate. However, the description is incomplete in two important respects: it does not define the commitment parameter semantics, and it does not situate the lookup among its sibling tools.

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 adds no real parameter meaning: 'this ORC commitment' does not explain what a commitment is, how it should be encoded, or where it comes from. The agent is left without guidance for filling the single required commitment parameter.

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 operation ('Registry lookup'), asks a precise yes/no question ('is this ORC commitment sealed by this notary?'), and lists the returned fields (digest, issuer, profile, attestation, registered_at) plus the NotFound case. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like list_commitments or verify.

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 phrasing implies use for looking up whether a commitment is sealed by a notary, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over related tools such as commitment_status, verify, or reveal. There is no when-not guidance or alternative routing.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic listing and filter capability, but fails to mention pagination, sorting, rate limits, permissions, or any side effects. While an output schema exists, the description itself lacks transparency about the tool's operational behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or filler, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description still feels incomplete. It does not explain the default behavior when no state is provided (e.g., lists all commitments), nor does it mention pagination or result limits. For a listing tool, this context is essential for proper usage.

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 defines 'state' as a nullable string with no enum constraints, so the description adds significant value by listing the allowed values (PENDING, REVEALED, EXPIRED). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, making the parameter's semantics clear.

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 'List' and the resource 'commitments', and specifies the optional filter with the exact allowed enum values (PENDING, REVEALED, EXPIRED). This sets it apart from sibling tools like 'commit' (create) and 'commitment_status' (single status), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., commitment_status for a single commitment or commit for creating). It also omits context such as prerequisites or default behavior when no filter is applied.

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?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: verification against commitment with strict failure on one bit of drift, return of a delivery_proof string, and expiration of late reveals. This adds significant context beyond the input schema.

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 sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, verification mechanics and return, and expiration. No redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 description covers purpose, verification, return, and expiration, which is adequate for a reveal tool with an output schema. However, parameter semantics are lacking, and prerequisites like 'handover' are not explained, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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 description mentions 'salt' and 'content_digest' in context but does not explain their meaning, format, or origin. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly for each of the three required parameters.

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 that the tool reveals the committed content's digest and salt after handover, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like commit, verify, and list_commitments by specifying the post-handover context.

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 after handover and mentions that late reveals expire, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., verify or commitment_status). No exclusion criteria are provided.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses the side effect ('register its commitment'), the dual verification modes (offline L1 and registry L2), the attestation scope ('integrity and time, not correctness'), and the output constraints ('No floats in output; stores only digests'). This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds verification, attestation, and spec details without wasted words. It could be slightly tighter, but each sentence carries meaningful information.

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 description is strong on behavior and points to an external spec, and an output schema exists, which helps. However, with no annotations and zero parameter guidance, an agent cannot fully understand the required semantic context for several parameters. It is adequate but has 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% and the description does not compensate. Five parameters exist, but the description only loosely references 'output' and says nothing about profile, subject, bindings, or excludes. An agent cannot determine their meaning or formatting from the text.

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 action: 'Seal an agent output as an Outcome Receipt (ORC v0.1) and register its commitment.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and core function. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like commit or get_orc_commitment, so some differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no sibling alternatives are mentioned. The description explains what the tool does but not under what circumstances an agent should choose this over commit, verify, or reveal. Context is implied at best.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the action. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, or error conditions, leaving agents uncertain about behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be expanded with bullet points or additional context without losing conciseness.

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 the presence of sibling tools and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value or how verification works, leaving agents to infer critical details.

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%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It mentions 'content_digest' but not 'commitment_id', leaving its semantics unclear. The description adds marginal value beyond the parameter names.

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 tool's purpose: 'Independently verify a revealed commitment' with an optional digest check. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like 'commit', 'reveal', and 'list_commitments', providing clear differentiation.

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 after a reveal but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites.

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