audit_verify

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the return values (OK+count or BROKEN+index), the existence and location of the audit log file, and the compliance evidence context. It does not contradict any annotations (none present).

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second details return values, third adds compliance context. It is front-loaded and informative, though the compliance evidence sentence is relatively long and might be streamlined.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (OK+count, BROKEN+index) and the nature of the audit log. It does not cover error cases (e.g., log file missing), but the overall context is sufficiently complete for a verification tool.

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 input schema covers both parameters (since, until) with 100% coverage. The description adds context by explaining that these parameters restrict counters while the chain is still verified end-to-end. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 clearly states that the tool verifies the integrity of the local audit log chain and returns OK or BROKEN results. It specifies the resource (audit log) and the action (verify). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'run_audit', which may also perform audit-related functions.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools like 'run_audit' or others.

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