radiant_verify_inference_proof

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation is off-chain and specifies the exact hashing algorithm and concatenation order used for verification. It does not mention return values or failure behavior, but the core behavior is well exposed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the technical detail about the hash check is compact and relevant.

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 description captures the essential verification logic but omits what the tool returns (e.g., boolean true/false) or what happens on mismatch. Given no output schema and no annotations, a slightly fuller description would make the tool fully self-contained for an agent.

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 adds extra value by explicitly defining the hash construction as 'blake3(modelHash || inputHash || output)', which clarifies how the parameters are combined and in what order.

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 action ('Verify'), a specific resource ('inference proof commitment'), and a defining detail ('off-chain'). It also names the exact check performed, making it clearly distinct from the sibling 'radiant_create_inference_proof' and other validation tools.

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 the tool is for verifying a commitment after one has been generated, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like 'radiant_create_inference_proof'. There is no exclusion guidance or mention of alternative tools.

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