pot_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns validity, mode, and timestamp, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. For a verification tool with four required parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action (verify) and key inputs. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output details for 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 the tool's complexity (four required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the verification process, potential outputs beyond a vague list, or how results should be interpreted. For a tool with cryptographic inputs and no structured output, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying that potHash and grgShards are used for verification. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: verifying a Proof of Time using hash and GRG shards, and specifies what it returns (validity, mode, timestamp). It distinguishes from siblings like pot_generate (creation) and pot_query (querying) by focusing on verification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with pot_health or pot_stats, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pot_query or pot_stats. It mentions the required inputs but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. Without such context, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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