AI Codex

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

The description discloses that the operation is append-only and declarative, suggesting no destructive side effects. However, it does not explain auth requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate calls. Without annotations, more behavioral detail is needed.

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 concise with one sentence plus a parenthetical spec reference. It conveys key points efficiently, though the spec reference may require external lookup for full 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?

Given the complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks detail on return values, behavior on multiple calls, and relationship to sibling tools. More contextual information is needed for complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'binding' is an opaque object. The description references a specification (SPEC-principal-binding-v1) but does not explain the structure or properties of the binding object. The added meaning is minimal beyond the schema.

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 registers a Principal Binding, binds an agent to an accountable person/organization, and mentions it is append-only and anti-Sybil. It distinguishes from siblings like declare_receipt and declare_succession by specifying the binding action.

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 with terms like 'append-only' and 'anti-Sybil' but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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 provided, so the description takes full responsibility. It discloses key behavioral traits: append-only (immutable), anti-self-attestation, and anti-Sybil via bound issuer. This is good, though it omits details like actions taken on receipt validation failure.

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 concise at two sentences, covering purpose and key constraints without excess. However, the dense jargon (e.g., 'anti-Sybil (bound issuer)') may reduce clarity for an AI agent on first read.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description explains purpose and constraints but leaves gaps: return value, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., known counterpart). The sibling tool list provides context but doesn't substitute for these 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning for the 'receipt' parameter. It names the spec (SPEC-reputation-receipt-v1) and that it's signed, but it does not explain the object structure or required fields, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for a free-form object.

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 registers an Interaction Receipt signed by an accountable counterpart, and it includes specific constraints like append-only and anti-Sybil. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like declare_principal and get_reputation, though the differentiation is not explicitly stated.

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 when there is a signed receipt to register, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternatives among sibling tools like resolve. The 'review/dispute -> feeds the score' phrase hints at context but lacks clarity.

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 provides key behavioral traits: append-only, declarative, no transfer. This goes beyond the basic registration action and informs the agent of important safety and usage characteristics.

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, dense sentence that covers purpose and key behaviors. It is well-front-loaded and contains no fluff, earning its place.

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 and some behavioral traits, but lacks parameter semantics and output expectations. Given no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns, and the complex nested parameter is left underdocumented.

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 only parameter 'statement' is an object with no defined properties (additionalProperties true), and the description provides no structure details. It only references an external spec but does not summarize expected fields, leaving a significant gap in understanding.

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 it registers a self-signed Succession Statement, referencing a spec (SPEC-succession-v1). It distinguishes itself from transfer operations and specifies it is append-only and declarative, making its resource and action 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 implies this tool is for declarative, append-only registration without transfer, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like declare_principal or declare_receipt. No when/not or alternatives are given.

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 exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'live' and 'always present' but omits error cases, authentication needs, or side effects.

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 with no extraneous words, front-loading the key action and result.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return format or VC structure. It merely states 'Reputation VC' without elaboration.

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%, yet the description does not explain the 'did' parameter's format, constraints, or purpose beyond its name.

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 a Reputation VC for a DID, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve or register.

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 vs alternatives like resolve or declare_principal. The description lacks context for selection.

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?

Adds behavioral info (idempotent, requires signed call) beyond schema, but lacks disclosure of destructiveness, permissions, or effects on existing state. With no annotations, more detail would be warranted.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence, but sacrifices important contextual detail that could be included 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?

Severely incomplete: no return value info, no error conditions, no parameter descriptions. For a tool with nested objects and no output schema, this description fails to provide minimal necessary context.

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 coverage is 0% and description adds no explanation for any of the three parameters (proof, metadata, public_key_multibase). The 'proof' object is complex and remains undocumented.

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 states verb 'register' and resource 'agent', with added nuance of idempotency and signed call requirement. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'declare_principal' which may have overlapping purpose.

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 alternatives such as 'declare_principal', 'declare_receipt', or others. No prerequisites or contextual conditions 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?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden but only states it is 'public', which is vague. No disclosure of behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling.

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 efficiently communicates the core purpose. No unnecessary 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the basic transformation but omits details about the output format, potential errors, or additional context that would fully inform an 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 single parameter 'did' has 0% schema description coverage. The description only repeats 'Resolve a DID' without adding format, constraints, or examples. Baseline for low coverage requires compensation, which is lacking.

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 verb 'resolve' and the resource 'DID', and specifies the output 'DID Document + metadata (public)'. It distinctly separates from sibling tools like 'declare_principal' and 'register'.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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