context_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it signs with HMAC-SHA256 using specific keys and that the receipt verifies with the same key. It does not describe return format, side effects, or error cases (e.g., missing key), but the core signing behavior is well explained.

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 but slightly long—four sentences covering purpose, contents, signing mechanism, and verification. All sentences add value and are front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, though it could be tighter.

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 is moderately complex (signing, key management, verification), and the description covers the key aspects: what it signs, how it signs, and how to verify. It lacks an explicit return-value description (no output schema exists), but the purpose and integration with verify_context_receipt make the context complete enough for invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the 'artifact' parameter; it mentions 'for this session' but does not elaborate on how to choose artifact values. This is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 ('Issue') and resource ('HMAC-SHA256-signed context receipt'), listing exactly what it contains (files/views, SHA-256 hashes, delivery modes, token totals). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the receipt generation role and pointing to 'verify_context_receipt' for 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 implies usage by framing it as 'the auditable answer to what did the AI see when it did this?' and mentions verification with a sibling tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to context_stats, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it for audit needs.

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