receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful context: the result is a 'safe' subset, and SHA-256 represents byte identity, not aesthetic or quality review. It does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only, though 'Return' implies a read operation.

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 short sentences, with the core operation front-loaded and the SHA-256 clarification providing meaningful disambiguation. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, so the description need not be extensive. However, without an output schema, the description could better explain what a 'receipt subset' contains and what 'safe' means. The SHA-256 line helps, but the return contract remains vague.

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 covers 100% of the parameter documentation with 'FARPY job id.' The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a safe receipt subset.' This distinguishes it from siblings like status, start, and download. However, 'receipt subset' and 'safe' are not fully defined, so the purpose is clear but somewhat jargon-dependent.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect, status, or download. The SHA-256 comment hints that this is for byte-identity verification, but it does not state that this is the receipt tool to use instead of other tools, or give any exclusion criteria.

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