detect_split_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains the honesty assumption, the meaning of a valid double-sign, the 'malformed' edge case, and the limitation that inconsistent=False can mean undetermined rather than proven consistent. This is far beyond a minimal 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?

The description is dense but every clause serves a purpose: definition, intuition, return keys, limitation, malformed clarification, and a pointer to a worked example. It front-loads the core question and avoids 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?

Given the complexity of the cryptographic check, the empty annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers return keys, edge cases, and the alternative path. The main gap is that the input schema is fully generic and the description does not specify the concrete JSON structure for anchors, cosigs, and witnesses, though it points to docs/TRANSPARENCY.md.

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 does define the roles of anchors, co-signatures, and witnesses in context, but it does not describe the expected shapes of anchor objects, cosig arrays, or the witnesses array. An agent can infer some meaning but not enough to construct all inputs confidently.

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 ('detect') and resource ('split_view'), and explains the exact condition being tested: whether a witness co-signed two inconsistent heads of the same log size. It also distinguishes itself from verify_consistency by naming the different-size-log case, so an agent can tell siblings apart.

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?

Explicitly says when the tool is decidable (shared head size) and when it is not, and directs users to verify_consistency for different-size logs. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool.

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