Checksum and Verify Pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the basic outcome (writes manifest for compute, reports status for verify) but omits important behaviors such as how include_globs/exclude_globs work, the effect of follow_symlinks, the meaning of strict mode, or what happens on overwrite. The parameter names provide hints, but the description does not add sufficient transparency for a tool with 9 parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 composed of three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first sentence states the overall function and scope, second describes compute, third describes verify. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Compute or verify' and avoids unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is not complete. It covers the high-level actions but fails to explain how parameters like manifest_out, include_globs, strict, etc., affect behavior. It does not describe the return format for verify (e.g., how results are reported). For a tool with multiple modes and configuration options, more detail is needed to ensure correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only mentions action and path indirectly, leaving 7 parameters (manifest, manifest_out, include_globs, exclude_globs, follow_symlinks, max_file_bytes, strict) completely unexplained. Even though parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The manifest object's structure is not explained. This is a significant gap.

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 computes or verifies SHA-256 checksums for tdmcp artifacts like .tox, .recipe.json, and bundles. It distinguishes two specific actions (compute and verify) and mentions the manifest file output. The purpose is specific and distinct from the long list of sibling tools, most of which are about creating or managing content rather than checksumming.

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 provides clear context: the tool is for tdmcp artifacts and does not require a TD bridge. It succinctly explains when to use compute (to generate a manifest) and when to use verify (to check integrity). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., other verification tools among siblings). The guidance is present but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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