rec_verify

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

Annotations only cover read-only/non-destructive safety. The description goes well beyond that: it explains the sha256-signed integrity check and MODIFIED outcome, the per-block timestamp-hole check in cycle mode, the counter ground-truth check, and the full PASS/INCONCLUSIVE/FAIL decision logic including the older-version stop edge case.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the three check types, then the verdict rule — a logical order. It is dense and jargon-heavy with long semicolon-joined clauses, but each clause carries distinct verification semantics rather than 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?

For a complex verification tool with an output schema present (so return format needn't be restated), the description covers checks, parameter meaning, and all verdict outcomes. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the load, and it does for the two non-obvious params: `counter` is defined with concrete example symbols (nCycleCount, TwinCAT_SystemInfoVarList._TaskInfo[1].CycleCount) and `step` is defined as the required per-sample increment. Only the required `id` parameter is left undocumented, which is a minor 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 and resource ('Prove a finished recording') and immediately scopes it to integrity, timeline, and counter verification. An agent can tell this apart from rec_read, rec_compare, or rec_status, which read or diff data rather than proving a recording's soundness.

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?

Makes clear this applies to a *finished* recording and precisely describes the conditions under which a verdict is INCONCLUSIVE vs FAIL, which effectively tells the agent when the tool's answer is meaningful. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative tool or state when not to call it.

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