reverify_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and exceeds it. It reveals that the operation is memory-independent, and it explains the three failure modes (sources_match, refuted, missing_proofs) including that missing_proofs deliberately does not pass.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following paragraphs earn their place by covering provenance and failure-mode semantics. There is no 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?

For a 2-parameter audit-style tool with an output schema, the description provides what an agent needs to call it correctly: what it does, why it is auditor-equivalent, and how to interpret its distinguishable failure outcomes.

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%, so the description must compensate. It contextualizes source_set as source files on disk and run_id as the recorded close, but it never explicitly maps either parameter or gives format/constraint details beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Re-derive a whole recorded close from the source files on disk.' It then names the concrete steps—re-ingesting sources, checking sha256, re-deriving proofs—which clearly separates it from sibling get/verify/run 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?

It gives clear context: this is the same thing an outside auditor does, done on demand, because nothing is read from process memory. It does not explicitly name when to prefer it over siblings like run_close or verify_proof, nor state exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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