verify_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool is local and returns a boolean with a reason, but does not clarify whether it is read-only, if it has side effects, or how errors are surfaced. The term 'verify' implies non-mutating, but this is not explicit.

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?

A single sentence with no redundancy. The core action and output are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it could include a hint about usage without becoming verbose.

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 tool with four parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what constitutes a valid attestation, how the proof and envelope relate, or what the 'reason' format is. An agent might call it correctly for the simplest case but lacks context for the optional parameters and edge cases.

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 the schema documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the general notion of 'attestation'. It does not clarify the relationship between proof, envelope, and attestation, or how to choose among them, but the schema descriptions partially cover this. 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?

States a specific action ('Verify a local ACTION attestation') and a clear outcome ('return valid true or false with a reason'). Distinguishes from sibling attest_action (which creates attestations) and gate_tool_call (likely gating) by its verification role, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, when verification is appropriate, or why one would choose this over attest_action or gate_tool_call. Usage is only implied by the verb 'verify'.

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