self_test

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

Discloses read-only, deterministic behavior, no network calls, and not contacting ScopeBlind servers, going beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) with specific operational details and return format.

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 sentences efficiently convey purpose, constraints, and call order; front-loaded with action and directly useful for agent decision-making.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and detailed description covering behavior, output shape, and recommended usage order, it is fully complete for 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?

No parameters present, so baseline 4 applies; description adds no extra parameter info as none exist.

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?

Clearly states the tool runs a packaged offline self-test that verifies a known-good sample receipt and bundle, distinguishing from siblings like verify_receipt and verify_bundle by being a self-contained trust check.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Call this first to prove the verifier works before verifying your own artifacts', providing clear when-to-use guidance and implying it's a prerequisite for sibling tools.

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