[Planned — not yet implemented on the remote endpoint, returns NOT_IMPLEMENTED] Forward-linked hash-chain / ed25519 audit-log verification is not yet built in this backend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool is a stub and returns NOT_IMPLEMENTED. This is more transparent than many descriptions that omit such critical caveats.
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 that conveys the planned status, the intended functionality, and the current behavior (NOT_IMPLEMENTED). Every element earns its place 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 that this is a planned tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the tool will do and that it currently returns NOT_IMPLEMENTED. It does not explain the expected return format for future implementation, but that is not necessary for current use.
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 the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document and no ambiguity exists.
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 intended purpose (forward-linked hash-chain / ed25519 audit-log verification) and explicitly notes that it is not yet implemented. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_audit_log, which is for reading logs. The verb is implied ('verify') rather than explicitly stated, but the meaning is 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 tells the agent the tool is not implemented and returns NOT_IMPLEMENTED, which implies it should not be called. However, it offers no guidance on when it would be used in the future or any alternative tools to use instead. Sibling tools like get_audit_log exist but are not mentioned.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., CRUD for custom rules, mode management, presets, validation). However, get_rules, list_custom_rules, and get_rule_modes could be confused since all return rule-related info, though descriptions differentiate their focus.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_custom_rule, get_audit_log, delete_custom_rule). Even multi-word names like ship_confidence_check maintain the pattern, with no mixing of conventions.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3–15 range but appropriate for the rule enforcement domain, covering custom rules, presets, modes, audit, and validation. However, three planned-but-unimplemented tools add clutter and could be confusing.
Core operations are present: full CRUD for custom rules, preset application, mode overrides, validation, and audit log. However, three tools are non-functional (NOT_IMPLEMENTED), and there is no way to remove a bypass or manage constitutional rules, leaving some noticeable gaps.