markovian_verify

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the tool is a pure recomputation with no external dependencies, fails on any byte change, and requires nothing from the operator. This provides clear expectations.

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 (two paragraphs, about 40 words) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return behavior. It implies failure ('fails the check') but does not state whether it returns a boolean, raises an error, or what happens on success. This is a notable gap given the lack of annotations and schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'content' and 'previously stamped canonical_root' but does not specify formats, constraints, or how they relate to each other. The schema titles only provide basic hints.

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 that the tool verifies content by recomputing a canonical root, using specific verbs ('Verify') and resources ('content', 'canonical_root'). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on verification, while sibling tools are 'stamp' and 'trace'.

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 gives context about when to use (after stamping, to detect tampering) and emphasizes that the check is pure and trustless. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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