Verify a KNOBE document

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating safety. The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'never prompts the user,' the full list of integrity states, and the fact that the action parameter evaluates permission against sealed governance fields. It also describes the return value shape (markdown plus structured JSON). No contradiction with annotations.

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 (4 sentences plus bullet list and args) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior note, integrity states, parameter explanation, return value. No fluff or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema (mentioned), the description sufficiently covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and return format. It explains what the tool checks (cryptographic seal, spec conformance) and what outputs are produced. No obvious gaps for a verification tool of moderate complexity.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds value by providing example actions ('redistribute', 'summarize', 'train') for the 'action' parameter, which goes beyond the generic schema description. The 'path' parameter is reinforced identically, but the examples elevate the score above the baseline of 3.

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: 'Verify the cryptographic seal and spec conformance of a KNOBE document.' It lists integrity states, which solidifies the purpose. The verb 'verify' and the resource 'KNOBE document' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from sibling tools like knobe_read (which reads) and knobe_seal_* (which creates seals).

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 mentions 'Read-only; never prompts the user,' which is a behavioral note but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling might be more appropriate. The context of sibling names suggests usage, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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