HiveAttest

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the implementation is reference-grade and wire format normative, but does not explain side effects (e.g., state changes), input requirements, return values, or error behavior. The cryptic 'Layer B' reference adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 three sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words, but the inclusion of cryptic terms like 'C13: prov-absence' and 'Layer B' could be more clearly explained, slightly reducing 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 tool's complexity (building a cryptographic tree), the description is sparse. It does not explain the structure of the 'events' input, expected output, or preconditions (e.g., sorting requirements). Without an output schema, the agent is left without enough information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 100% (window_id and events are described in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither enhances nor harms parameter 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 the tool's function: 'Build a sorted Merkle tree for an audit window'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like attest_absence_prove and attest_absence_verify, which deal with proof generation and verification rather than tree construction.

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 — building a tree enables non-membership proofs — but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'production-grade Layer B' hints at intended use cases but lacks clear exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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 fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'Wire format normative' which are cryptic and do not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the window does not exist, or any error/edge-case behavior. No side effects, auth needs, or rate limits are described.

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 brief (two sentences) but includes unexplained jargon ('C13', 'Layer B') and redundant qualifiers ('Reference-grade implementation', 'Wire format normative') that may confuse rather than inform. It is compact but not optimally clear.

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 complex sibling toolset and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how this tool relates to attest_absence_build/verify, what the expected output or return value is, or how to handle prerequisite failures. The cryptic references assume domain knowledge not provided.

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%: both parameters (window_id and query) have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'prove' and the resource 'audit window' with a clear outcome: proving non-membership of a query event. This distinguishes it from siblings like attest_absence_build and attest_absence_verify. However, the unexplained references 'C13' and 'Layer B' introduce ambiguity, preventing a perfect score.

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 the window must be 'previously-built' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as attest_absence_verify or attest_absence_build. There are no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit build requirement.

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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'Verify a non-membership proof,' implying a read-only check, but it does not disclose the return value, error handling, side effects, or permissions required. The phrases 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'wire format normative' provide some context about quality and standards, but they do not describe the tool's runtime behavior or 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?

The description is concise, leading with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two short contextual statements about implementation grade and wire format. Each sentence contributes useful information without excessive length. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, void), how it signals invalid proofs, or any side effects. It also omits details about edge cases, such as handling of malformed proof objects or invalid root hex strings. Given the tool's complexity (nested proof object, specific domain), the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it without further assumptions.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters: 'proof' is 'Non-membership proof from attest_absence_prove' and 'root_hex' is 'Expected Merkle root (hex)'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema offers. With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and object: 'Verify a non-membership proof against an expected Merkle root (C13).' This distinguishes it from sibling verification tools (e.g., attest_custody_verify, attest_passport_verify) because it explicitly targets non-membership proofs for absence attestations. The mention of 'C13' adds concreteness, 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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The description indicates this tool verifies non-membership proofs, and the input schema references attest_absence_prove as the source of the proof, suggesting it is the counterpart to that tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over other verification tools or when not to use it. The note 'production-grade is Layer B' implies a higher-grade alternative exists but does not directly say 'use that instead for production.'

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 carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavior: 'Pins a definition hash for version-anchoring,' and mentions 'Wire format normative,' which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or security requirements. This is a partial disclosure, leaving gaps about what happens on existing IDs or what response to expect.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. However, the third sentence containing 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'production-grade is Layer B' introduces jargon that may not be actionable or clear to an agent, and 'C17: hive-cargo-taxonomy' is an unexplained reference. While concise, not every sentence earns its place, and the cryptic terminology may distract.

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 has 6 parameters including a nested schema, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should compensate. It explains the core purpose and the hash-pinning mechanism, but lacks information about return values, error handling, usage prerequisites, or the meaning of 'Layer B' and 'C17'. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the operational context of this registration tool.

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 high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context beyond the schema by explaining that the tool 'Pins a definition hash for version-anchoring,' which gives meaning to 'version' and 'schema' parameters. It also frames the cargo type as 'versioned', reinforcing the version parameter's importance. This added meaning slightly exceeds the schema's straightforward 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: 'Register a versioned cargo type in the HiveAttest registry'. It identifies the resource (cargo type in registry) and the specific verb (register), distinguishing it from sibling tools like attest_cargo_validate or attest_cargo_snapshot. The mention of C17 taxonomy further clarifies its specific domain.

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 when to use the tool: when registering a versioned cargo type. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like attest_cargo_validate or attest_cargo_snapshot. The quality caveat ('Reference-grade implementation. Wire format normative; production-grade is Layer B') hints at maturity but not usage context. Thus, guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds caveats about being 'reference-grade' and 'wire format normative.' However, it does not explicitly state whether there are side effects, permissions, or any detailed return behavior beyond the Merkle root, leaving some ambiguity.

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, composed of three short sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, while the second and third add implementation context. The 'Reference-grade implementation' sentence is somewhat cryptic but still relevant. No unnecessary filler.

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 no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple getter: it states what is returned (registry snapshot with Merkle root) and the intended use. The 'Layer B' reference gives additional context about production readiness. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to elaborate. The description adds a little semantic context by mentioning the Merkle root and version pinning, which helps the agent understand what the tool produces, even though there is nothing to configure. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 function: 'Get a registry snapshot with Merkle root for version pinning (C17).' It uses a specific verb, names a concrete resource (registry snapshot), and specifies the purpose (version pinning), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like attest_cargo_register or attest_cargo_validate.

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 gives a clear context for use: 'for version pinning (C17).' This indicates when to use the tool. It also hints at an exclusion with 'production-grade is Layer B,' implying this reference-grade implementation is not intended for production use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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. It discloses that the tool is reference-grade and wire-format normative, which is useful context. However, it does not mention return values, error behavior, or side effects, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a necessary qualification about reference-grade use. No filler or 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior. It does not specify what a validation result looks like or how errors are reported, making the description incomplete for a tool with no structured output.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (cargo_type_id, version, payload), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Validate') on a specific resource ('payload against a registered cargo type schema') and includes the identifier 'C17'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like register, snapshot, and 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 description provides a clear usage boundary: 'Reference-grade implementation. Wire format normative; production-grade is Layer B.' This tells the agent to use it for reference/wire-format conformance and not for production, while implying an alternative. It does not name sibling tools but offers explicit when-to-use guidance.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: 'Taint propagates: once tainted, always tainted.' However, it omits side effects, permission requirements, return behavior, and other operational details that would fully inform an agent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every phrase adds information, including the taint propagation rule and the Layer B reference, with 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?

Given no output schema and a moderately complex operation, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the operation and taint behavior. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, and how the chain_id relates to existing custody chains beyond the schema's hint about creating a new chain.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds semantic context for taint_status via the taint propagation rule, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States 'Append a node to a custody chain' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the protocol context 'C16: hive-custody'. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like attest_custody_proof or attest_custody_verify, but the verb 'append' clearly conveys its role.

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 when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The phrases 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'production-grade is Layer B' imply a reference/testing context, hinting that this tool may not be for production, but this is not a clear or actionable guideline.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'wire format normative,' indicating quality and format expectations, but it does not describe return value structure, error conditions, or side effects. The term 'Retrieve' implies read-only, but more detail would be needed for full 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 highly concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds relevant context about implementation grade and wire format. No extraneous information is present, and the key action is 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?

The description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify the return format. The phrase 'wire format normative' gives a hint, but it does not describe the proof structure or behavior on invalid inputs. More context could improve completeness.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('0-based node index' and 'Chain identifier'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action: 'Retrieve a Merkle inclusion proof for a specific node in a custody chain (C16).' This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like custody_append and custody_verify, which handle different operations.

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 some context about the implementation maturity ('Reference-grade implementation. Wire format normative; production-grade is Layer B'), which hints at use cases but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use or exclusions, so it falls short of clear guidance.

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 carries the full burden. It discloses the core verification checks (hash linkage, signatures, taint propagation) and the reference-grade nature, but does not mention return values, failure behavior, side effects, or permissions. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary action. There is no redundant phrasing, and every sentence provides 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 covers the essential verification criteria but lacks information about the return value or success/failure indicators, especially given there is no output schema. For a tool with a single well-described parameter, this is a moderate 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'nodes' parameter, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('custody chain'), and lists the verification criteria (hash linkage, Ed25519 signatures, taint propagation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attest_custody_append and attest_custody_proof.

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 for verifying custody chains and provides a caution that this is a reference-grade implementation, with 'production-grade is Layer B' hinting at an alternative. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide detailed when-to-use/when-not-to-use 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, the description conveys that it verifies multiple attestation aspects and that every response includes a signed C18-format receipt. It also notes this is reference-grade with normative wire format. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or failure behavior beyond the decision outcome, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose. The 'THE HEADLINE TOOL' flourish and the Layer B reference add slight noise but do not detract significantly. Every sentence contributes core information about scope and response format.

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 has 5 params, nested objects, and no output schema, but the description explains the high-level decision logic and receipt behavior. It does not clarify how optional params affect verification (e.g., if cargo_manifest omitted, is cargo check skipped) or return value structure beyond the receipt. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would be useful.

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%, so parameters are already well-described. The description loosely maps to parameters (passport_manifest, cargo_manifest, warranty_ids) but does not add detailed syntax or cross-references beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 evaluates whether an agent may proceed through the HiveAttest gate, listing specific checks (passport signature+expiry, cargo registry membership, warranty status). It distinguishes itself from sibling attestation tools by being the 'headline' gate decision tool, not just a single attestation verifier.

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 is the gate evaluation tool when a gate decision is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over individual sibling tools like attest_passport_verify or attest_cargo_validate. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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. It does add useful behavioral traits: probabilistic selection, returns a signed inspection record, and states 'Wire format normative; production-grade is Layer B'. However, it omits side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only, which is a gap but not a contradiction.

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 short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, the second gives the return type, and the third adds implementation context. The phrase 'Reference-grade implementation' is somewhat redundant, but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 complexity (probabilistic logic, signed output) and no output schema, the description should explain more about the returned inspection record and the inspection process. It mentions 'signed inspection record' but not its structure or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters (e.g., how sample_rate is used or what records should contain), relying entirely on the schema. No additional semantic value provided 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 a specific action: 'Probabilistic secondary inspection of a record batch' with a reference code (C20: hive-secondary-inspection). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'secondary inspection' and returning a signed record, which is unique among the attest_* sibling names.

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 by mentioning 'secondary inspection' and 'record batch', but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like attest_cargo_validate or attest_absence_build. No exclusions or alternative references 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add useful context such as 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'Wire format normative; production-grade is Layer B,' which hint at implementation quality and format stability. However, it does not disclose side effects, return structure, or any safety profile, leaving gaps in behavioral 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 concise, using four short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add context. There is no redundant or extraneous wording, and every sentence contributes useful 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete: it explains what is returned (metadata for all claims) and when to use it (agent introspection). It could benefit from a hint about the return format, but the additional context about wire format and production-grade partially compensates for 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?

With zero parameters, the schema has no semantic burden, and the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 returns HiveAttest layer/spec/patent metadata for all claims, which is a specific and distinct purpose among the sibling attest tools. It uses a concrete verb ('Return') and identifies the resource (metadata) and scope (all claims), making it easy to distinguish from other attest operations.

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 a clear usage context by stating 'Useful for agent introspection,' which tells the agent when to consider this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of the top score.

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. It discloses the signing algorithm (Ed25519 over RFC 8785 JCS-canonical body), which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it omits side effects, return format, permissions, and whether the manifest is stored or emitted, leaving significant gaps.

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. The first two sentences are immediately useful, while the final sentence about 'reference-grade' and 'Layer B' is cryptic and adds little practical value. Overall, it remains concise without excessive verbosity.

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?

This tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It explains the signing mechanism but not what the generated manifest contains, how to use the result, or what the caller receives. The lack of usage guidance and behavioral detail makes it inadequate for confident 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on any parameter semantics beyond the schema; it adds no additional context for fields like action_id or ttl_seconds. The 'Pre-Action' framing hints at the context but is too vague to enhance parameter 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 the tool's purpose: to issue a Pre-Action Attestation Manifest (C15: hive-passport). It uses the specific verb 'Issue' and the resource name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like attest_passport_verify. The signing details (Ed25519, JCS-canonical body) further clarify its role.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that verification is handled by attest_passport_verify or that this is intended for pre-action use. The 'Pre-Action' concept is not explained, leaving invocation context ambiguous.

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?

The description proactively discloses key behavioral aspects: it checks signature, temporal validity, and optional hash. The note 'Reference-grade implementation' suggests non-production-status. However, it does not describe failure behaviors, return values, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a solid job, but leaves some gaps.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids wordiness, but the final two sentences introduce jargon ('Wire format normative', 'Layer B') that add some ambiguity. Overall, it is compact and to the point.

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 clearly explains the verification checks, but with no output schema, it does not indicate what the tool returns. It also lacks guidance on typical use cases or error handling. The context is sufficient for a simple verify tool, but the absence of return-value information leaves a gap in completeness.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (manifest and observed_inputs). The tool description's mention of 'observed inputs hash' aligns with the schema but adds little beyond it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('Pre-Action Attestation Manifest'). It enumerates concrete verification actions (Ed25519 signature, temporal validity, optional observed inputs hash), which distinguishes it from sibling attestation verifiers for other types. The identifier 'C15: hive-passport' adds specificity.

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?

Usage is implied for verifying passport manifests, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus other attestation verify tools (e.g., verify_absence, verify_custody). It also does not mention alternatives or exclusions, only implementation notes ('Reference-grade', 'Layer B') which hint at a reference/testing context but are not clear guidelines.

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 must disclose behavior. It does list the validation steps (schema, version, algorithm, timestamp, signature) and notes it is reference-grade, which adds context. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns on success/failure, or any side effects. This is a partial 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 brief and front-loads the core purpose. References like 'C8/C12' and 'Layer B' are unexplained, which slightly hampers clarity, but overall it is efficiently written without 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?

For a verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, detailed report), how invalid receipts are handled, and what 'Layer B' production-grade means. The cryptic references and missing return behavior leave significant gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters (receipt, pubkey_b64url, max_age_seconds), so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already contains, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 verifies a SMSH-Stamp v1 receipt and lists the validations performed (schema, version, algorithm, timestamp, Ed25519 signature). This distinguishes it from other verify tools by the receipt type, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 mentions 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'Wire format normative', implying this is for verification against a normative spec, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The 'Layer B' reference is cryptic and lacks context.

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 carry the transparency burden. It discloses the core side effect (marks warranty as breached) and the return value (signed breach record). However, it omits details like permissions required, irreversibility, failure modes, or the structure of the breach record, which are relevant for a mutating 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?

The opening sentences are concise and front-loaded, stating the action and outcome. However, the final two sentences about 'reference-grade implementation' and 'Layer B' are cryptic and may add noise, though they are short and do not significantly detract from 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?

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and result but lacks prerequisites (e.g., warranty must exist), detailed output format (what is in the signed record), and error conditions. The reference to 'production-grade is Layer B' is vague and does not enhance operational 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Report a warranty breach') and specifies the state change ('Marks the warranty as breached') and the output ('returns a signed breach record (C18)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attest_warranty_get and attest_warranty_issue, 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?

The intended use is implied: use when you need to report a warranty breach and obtain a signed record. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the scope from the tool name and siblings.

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 full weight. 'Retrieve' implies read-only behavior, but no details are given about error handling, return format, or side effects. 'Reference-grade implementation' is a code quality trait, not a 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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, the second sentence includes unexplained jargon (C18, Layer B) that adds noise and could confuse an agent. The description would be more effective if the jargon were removed or explained.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, return value explanation, and any context for the cryptic implementation references. It leaves the agent uncertain about how to handle this tool in practice.

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%, with warranty_id described as 'Warranty ID'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not confuse or mislead, but also adds no value.

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 'Retrieve a warranty by ID', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like attest_warranty_issue and attest_warranty_breach. The cryptic 'C18' and 'Layer B' references do not obscure the core 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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The phrase 'production-grade is Layer B' hints at a distinction but is not actionable or explanatory. There are no explicit use cases or 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add meaningful context by stating 'Signed with Ed25519' and 'Reference-grade implementation', which informs the agent about cryptographic signing and maturity. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what the response contains, leaving significant gaps.

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 brief and mostly front-loaded with the core function. Each sentence adds either a unique identifier, signing detail, or maturity level. However, terms like 'Wire format normative' and 'production-grade is Layer B' are cryptic and may require external context, slightly reducing 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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 5 parameters (3 required), nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and some behavioral aspects, but lacks details on return format, errors, or operational context. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete for safe autonomous 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add specific parameter-level guidance beyond the schema, but it does imply the purpose of 'claim' by saying 'committing an agent to a claim'. This is consistent with the baseline; no extra value is added.

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 function with a specific verb ('Issue') and resource ('attestation warranty'), and explains the commitment ('committing an agent to a claim'). It includes a protocol identifier (C18) that differentiates it from sibling tools like attest_warranty_breach and attest_warranty_get.

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 indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any exclusions or conditions. While it mentions 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'production-grade is Layer B', it does not clarify when this reference version is appropriate or when to prefer another tool.

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