Return deterministic capabilities, version, pack digest, pricing, composition, and the professional-review disclaimer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'deterministic' and lists return items, which implies consistency, but it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints. The output schema will detail return structure, so the description provides adequate but not exhaustive transparency.
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, well-structured sentence. It concisely lists the return items without unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse.
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 sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output. It lists all major return elements, and sibling tools are distinct, so the description is contextually 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?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4 per rules. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; it focuses on return values, which is acceptable.
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 returns specific deterministic information about the agent, including capabilities, version, pack digest, pricing, composition, and a disclaimer. The verb 'return' and the listed items make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like compile_disclosure and get_framework which likely cover different aspects.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description simply lists what it returns, without any context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.
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.
All five tools have distinct and clearly defined purposes: compilation, agent info, framework retrieval (detail and list), and verification. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Every tool uses snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern (compile_disclosure, describe_agent, get_framework, list_frameworks, verify_result). No deviations.
Five tools cover the core capabilities of a disclosure compiler without redundancy. The scope is well-scoped and each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: compilation, framework exploration, verification, and agent metadata. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.