chap.audit.verify_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers strong transparency: it explains what verified/ok true means, warns that not_evaluated/ok false must not be reported as verified, references entries_unchecked, and defines error as a broken or absent chain. This goes well beyond a simple 'verifies the chain' statement.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the following sentences earn their place by explaining output semantics and edge cases. It is compact without losing essential meaning.

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 explains the relevant result states, their integrity implications, the meaning of entries_unchecked, and error semantics. An agent has enough information to invoke it and interpret the outcome correctly.

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 parameters workspace and from are already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for fully covered schema parameters.

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: 'Replay a workspace's prev-hash chain.' It clearly conveys that this tool verifies chain integrity, and the focus on prev-hash chain distinguishes it from sibling tools like chap.audit.read, chap.audit.verify_receipt, and chap.audit.submit_to_scitt.

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 its use through the action 'Replay a workspace's prev-hash chain' and gives interpretive guidance about statuses, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is contextual rather than decisional.

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