actions_verify

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 explicitly declares 'Read-only' and details the verification behavior: recomputing every hash, link, signature, and checking last_receipt existence. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it does not discuss output format or edge cases like mismatched pubkey.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the resource and verification purpose, then explain the mechanics and end with the safety declaration. No redundant or filler wording.

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?

The tool is a multi-step cryptographic verification, so the description needs to convey conditions (INSPEXIMUS_ACTIONS=1), mechanics, and safety; it covers those well. However, with no output schema and no parameter semantics, the agent is left without knowledge of what a successful/failed verification returns or how expected_pubkey alters the call.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage) and the description never mentions expected_pubkey. While the parameter name suggests a public key used as an expectation, its role, default behavior, and effect on verification are left undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb 'Verify' and a specific resource, 'the ACTION LEDGER beside this store', and defines that ledger as the record of client MCP tool calls when INSPEXIMUS_ACTIONS=1. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like verify_writes or verify_consistency by targeting the client-action side rather than memory or writes.

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 context: it verifies the action ledger tied to the store and notes that a rewritten memory history is caught 'from the action side too', implying it complements memory-side verification. However, it does not name alternatives or specify when not to use this tool, leaving the decision to inference.

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