verify_double_threading

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

The description provides useful behavioral context: it is a read-only metadata check that performs one RPC read, lists ledger object IDs and flags duplicate symptoms. It does not disclose error conditions or permissions, but given no annotations, it sufficiently conveys the tool's non-destructive nature and scope.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it checks, and its limitation.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and behavior but omits parameter details and does not describe the output structure. The missing parameter descriptions leave a gap, though the schema provides some structure.

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 has two parameters (txHash, network), but the description does not mention or explain them. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The txHash parameter is somewhat self-explanatory from context, but the lack of explicit description reduces clarity.

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 function as a structural audit of a transaction's metadata threading, listing specific ledger object fields and flagging a specific symptom. It distinguishes itself by explicitly noting it is a metadata-only check and does not walk the full cross-ledger thread, making the purpose specific and well-defined.

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 usage for verifying double threading issues in transaction metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like trace_transaction_stakeholders or inspect_emitted_tx. It mentions that it does not walk the full thread, giving some context but lacking clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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