verify_consistency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool detects rewritten, rolled back, or re-signed history, that it is deterministic, that it does not use an LLM, and that it returns {consistent, problems}. The detect/confirm framing also implies a read-only operation.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the core purpose and scope, the second gives the return shape, and the third adds the adversarial use case and determinism guarantee. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input provenance, return value, and threat model. It could add more detail about the structure of the problems array or the exact fields in the prior_anchor, but those are secondary for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

The schema only says prior_anchor is an object with additionalProperties true, so there is 0% schema-description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that prior_anchor is an anchor an auditor recorded out of band and that an outsider already pinned it, giving the agent provenance context. It does not specify the object's exact internal shape, but for an intentionally open anchor object this is strong compensation.

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: 'Detect an APPEND-ONLY VIOLATION against a prior_anchor', then explains it re-derives chain tips to confirm consistent forward-extension. It also differentiates itself from the sibling verify_writes() by framing this as the operator-adversarial check verify_writes cannot perform on its own.

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 explicitly names verify_writes() as the alternative and states the condition that selects this tool: an operator-adversarial scenario where an auditor's out-of-band anchor is used to catch forged or re-signed history. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without opening sibling schemas.

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