verify_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares read-only behavior and verification scope, but does not disclose side effects, requirements (e.g., file access), or what happens on verification 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 extremely concise: two lines for purpose and one line per parameter. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns 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?

Given a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter context. Missing details on return value or verification outcome, but not critical for selection.

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, bundle_path, has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying the expected format ('Path to a bundle .json produced by generate_evidence_bundle'), which aids correct invocation.

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 is a read operation that verifies a sealed evidence bundle, listing specific aspects: chain integrity, seal head, signature. This differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_evidence_bundle (creates) and sign_bundle (signs).

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 '[READ]' prefix hints at read-only usage, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Sibling tools like verify_source_chain may be alternatives, but no comparison is given.

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