FaultKey · CausalLayer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Return') but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. The note 'FREE' hints at no cost but is not a standard behavioral disclosure.

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 conveys the tool's function and key return types. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes return values (index of batches or full JSON with specific fields). However, the exact format of the index is not detailed, leaving some ambiguity. Still, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that omitting the optional 'version' parameter returns an index of all batches, while providing it returns full JSON for that specific batch. This clarifies the conditional behavior of the single parameter, which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 explicitly states the tool returns an index of all anchor batches or a full JSON for one batch, using clear verb 'Return' and specific resource 'CausalLayer Tessera anchor batches'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (query_issuer_registry, submit_incident, verify_certificate) which serve different purposes.

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 this tool vs alternatives. The sibling tools are unrelated, but the description does not provide any context for appropriate use cases or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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; description carries burden. It discloses that the tool is free and requires no API key, and implies a read operation. But it does not confirm read-only nature or mention any 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?

Two focused sentences. First states main action, second details contents. 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?

Adequate for a simple query tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. Covers purpose, return content, and access cost. Could add read-only note but not essential.

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 100% and the description reiterates the parameter behavior (optional issuer_id, defaults to full registry). Adds modest clarification beyond schema with an example.

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 returns the CausalLayer issuer registry or a single record, and enumerates the contents (fingerprints, key algorithms, etc.). It distinguishes well from siblings which are about anchor status, incident submission, and certificate verification.

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 use for registry queries, and highlights that no API key is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings or provide exclusions.

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?

Discloses cost (50 credits), guardrails (PII scan, deterministic-only, minimum evidence), and conditional Bitcoin anchoring. Provides some behavior but does not elaborate on 'minimum evidence' or other side effects. No annotations to supplement.

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?

Concise three sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by returns and usage notes. No unnecessary verbiage.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description omits key details about parameter structures (nested objects for agents/events) and return format. Incomplete for effective invocation.

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?

Only 18% of parameters have schema descriptions. The description adds context for two parameters (pii_acknowledged, deterministic_only) via guardrails but leaves others (title, agents, events, etc.) undocumented. Fails to compensate for low coverage.

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 it submits an AI incident for deterministic causal liability attribution and lists what it returns (CausalCertificate, liability allocation, etc.). Distinct from sibling tools which are about verification and status.

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?

Implicitly suggests use for submitting incidents but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Lacks exclusionary criteria.

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, description carries full burden. Discloses cost (1 credit) and production rejection of inactive issuers. Could mention if read-only or side effects, but sufficient for a verification tool.

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 concise sentences: purpose, cost, production nuance. No redundancy, front-loaded key 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?

Covers core verification details, cost, environment behavior. Lacks return value or error conditions, but acceptable for simple tool. Sibling tool names provide 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?

Single parameter 'certificate' has schema description referencing sibling tool output, adding meaning beyond schema. With 100% schema coverage, this exceeds baseline by providing provenance.

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 'verify a CausalCertificate' and details what is verified (signature, Merkle integrity, issuer status). Distinguishes from siblings (get_anchor_status, query_issuer_registry, submit_incident) through specific functionality.

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?

Provides context on when to use: independent verification, mentions cost and production behavior. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions, but context from sibling tool names makes usage clear.

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