verify_audit_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only, informational, does not repair, and describes the exact return format including fields and meanings. No contradictions or gaps are 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 concise, with each sentence adding value: it states purpose, usage context, limitations, and return format. No extraneous content or redundancy.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, its behavioral traits, and the return structure, leaving no critical gaps for an agent.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 verifies the SHA-256 hash chain over the audit log to detect tampering. It specifies the action ('Recompute' and 'confirm') and the resource ('audit chain'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'audit_log' and 'export_audit' by focusing on integrity verification.

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 explicitly suggests when to use the tool ('periodically as a tamper-evidence check' or 'whenever you suspect the audit log has been touched'). It also states what the tool does not do ('does not repair the chain'), implying when not to rely on it for repair. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state alternative actions, missing a point for full guidance.

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