Verify a file against a certificate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool computes SHA-256 locally and verifies server-side, and that no file bytes are sent. However, it does not explain error handling, return values, or permissions needed, which are important for safe invocation.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and input requirements. No redundant information, every sentence adds value. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should specify what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, matched hash, signature validity) to enable the agent to act on results. This is missing, leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome.

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 description adds context that optional parameters (titolo, autore, anno, note) come from the certificate, which aids understanding. However, 50% of parameters lack schema descriptions, and the description does not fully compensate by explaining their purpose or format beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool computes SHA-256 of a local file and verifies it against a hash and HMAC signature, emphasizing that no file bytes are sent. This differentiates it from siblings like 'verify_certificate' but could be more explicit about how it differs from 'attest_file' and 'check_anchor'.

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 when a file needs to be verified against a certificate, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'verify_certificate' or 'attest_file'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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