verify_writes

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the result shape ({ok, problems, expected_pubkey}), the failure mode (ok=false with offending ids), and an important caveat (a rewritten-and-re-signed store can verify clean, reported via limits). It doesn't explicitly state side-effect/permission behavior, but 'verify' plus the tamper-evidence framing make the read-only intent reasonably clear.

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 compact, starts with the core purpose and the key word 'TAMPER-EVIDENCE', and packs return format, parameter semantics, and an edge-case warning into a few sentences. No sentence is filler; the minor wording roughness does not reduce clarity.

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 a single optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and many verification siblings, the description covers return values, parameter behavior, defaults, and a security caveat, so an agent can invoke it correctly. The only notable omission is explicit routing guidance against sibling verification tools, which is partly a usage-guideline issue rather than a completeness gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: expected_pubkey is hex, optional, defaults to INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPT_PUBKEY, and setting it binds the verdict to the expected signing key. It also explains the real-world consequence of omitting it on a signed store, going well beyond the bare schema.

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 precise verb 'verify' and a precise resource 'hash-chained write ledger', and characterizes it as a TAMPER-EVIDENCE check that detects silent edits/insertions/reordering. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling verifier tools such as verify_claim or verify_audit_bundle, even though no sibling is named.

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 the tool is the go-to for checking write-ledger integrity, but it never states when to prefer it over the many sibling verification tools (verify_witness, verify_consistency, verify_audit_bundle, etc.) nor gives explicit exclusions. The guidance that remains is mostly about configuring expected_pubkey, not about tool selection.

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