trace_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the backward trace direction, the byte-match check, ledger verification, chain verification, and the distinction between attested and caller-declared fields. It does not mention failure modes or permissions, but the audit framing suggests a read-oriented operation.

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 with no filler. The action and direction are front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to the audit semantics without repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the checks performed, and the nature of the result (attested vs caller-declared fields). It does not describe the exact output structure or error behavior, but it gives enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter with 'any distinctive substring of the stored claim to trace'. The description reinforces the link to stored memory but does not add meaningful semantic detail 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?

The description anchors on a specific action ('Audit BACKWARDS') and resource ('stored memory... evidence'), then spells out concrete checks: byte range, byte match, append-only ledger arrival, and chain verification. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like recall or verify_receipts.

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 gives a clear use context: trace evidence provenance backward from a stored memory and determine which fields are attested versus caller-declared. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the strongest routing guidance but is not ambiguous about its intent.

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