browser.verify_witness

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: walks every receipt, recomputes chain, reports first divergent receipt if altered/reordered/truncated. Could be slightly more explicit about success output (e.g., null or success flag), but adequately transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. The purpose is stated first, followed by a concise explanation of the verification process. Every word earns its place.

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 specific nature and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the core algorithm well. It explains what it checks (altered, reordered, truncated) and what it reports (first divergent receipt). Missing details like return format on success or error handling, but still fairly 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter session_id. The tool description does not explain what the parameter represents or how to obtain it. While session_id is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add value beyond the schema's basic type and length constraints.

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 action: verify integrity of a session's Witness receipt hash chain. It explains the mechanism (walks receipts, recomputes chain, reports first divergence) and distinguishes from all sibling tools, none of which perform this specific 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?

No guidance on when or when not to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only explains what it does, not the context in which it should be invoked. Missing explicit conditions or references to related tools like get_session.

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