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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key safety trait: no execution and no promotion, i.e. a non-side-effecting adjudication. It omits determinism/idempotency, whether the decision is persisted, and any auth or cost characteristics, so the disclosure is helpful but partial.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the critical non-side-effecting caveat. Dense jargon but no filler; every clause maps to a real stage or constraint.

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 covers the decision output (a sealed Merkle evidence root), which partially compensates for the absent output schema, and it frames the required-parameter flow. But with 6 nested parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition stops short of what an agent needs to construct a valid call.

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 0% across six parameters (including nested scenario, baseline, baselineReplay, policy), yet the description names none of them explicitly. Its phrases ('same-scenario replay', 'impact screen', 'positive fitness delta') only loosely hint at baselineReplay and policy.requiredFitnessMargin, adding little usable meaning for the caller.

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?

States a specific verb ('Adjudicate') plus resource ('one defensive-mutation episode') and enumerates the pipeline stages (impact screen, replay, regression gates, fitness delta, Merkle seal). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling tools it differs from (e.g. verify_episode_evidence), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 closing line 'Executes nothing and promotes nothing on its own' usefully implies this is an adjudication-only step, not a promotion path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance against siblings like verify_episode_evidence or verify_immune_lineage, leaving the selection ambiguous.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reports policy details including a "declared absence of side effects," which adds useful context, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool itself is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how the information is returned.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned policy details without filler or redundancy. Every listed item appears intended to help an agent understand the tool's output.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the primary specification. It lists the returned policy fields comprehensively enough for a no-argument informational tool, though it could specify format or scope more fully.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this dimension is appropriately scored 4.

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 uses a specific verb, "Return," and enumerates the policy details returned: protocol versions, hash algorithm, gate thresholds, input limits, rejection reasons, and side-effect declaration. This clearly identifies an informational tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the verification/reset/export siblings beyond its read-only inventory purpose.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives exist. Usage is only weakly implied by the name and by the fact that it returns policy metadata.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scope (only episodes adjudicated in this session) and output contents (lineage, verdict counts, integrity flag), but omits export format, whether the operation is read-only/safe, required permissions, and any rate or size limits.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with no filler or redundancy.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema export tool, the description partially compensates by naming the returned data (lineage, counts, integrity flag). It still leaves format, permissions, and failure/precondition behavior unspecified, so an agent lacks enough to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description instead clarifies what the parameterless export returns, which is the only meaningful semantic context available.

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?

States a specific verb ("Export") and a well-scoped resource ("the hash-linked lineage of every episode adjudicated in this session"), and previews the payload (verdict counts, integrity flag). It is distinguishable from the sibling verify_immune_lineage, though it doesn't explicitly frame the contrast (export a report vs. verify lineage).

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 "in this session" phrasing implies this is a post-adjudication reporting step, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must episodes be adjudicated first?), and no mention of alternatives such as verify_immune_lineage or describe_policy.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It usefully discloses that previously exported reports remain independently verifiable, which is a non-obvious side-effect guarantee. However, it does not state whether the reset is destructive, reversible, or permission-gated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key post-condition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 state-resetting operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify destructiveness, reversibility, and required permissions. The exported-report note is valuable, but core behavioral details are missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and fully covered, and there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify.

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 verb and resource: 'Clear this session's lineage.' It is clear enough to distinguish from export/verify siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope the operation against them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. the sibling lineage tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description merely states the action without context for selecting it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the core behavior: it recomputes a root and reports a byte-level integrity verdict, implying a non-destructive read. It omits auth requirements, what happens on mismatch, and whether a failure is returned as an error or a boolean, leaving meaningful gaps for a security-sensitive tool.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the outcome. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 tool with a required nested-object parameter at 0% coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves too much unstated: the expected shape of 'evidence' and the form of the result are both unexplained.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'evidence' parameter is an undocumented nested object. The description mentions 'sealed episode' and 'covered bytes' but never explains what the evidence object must contain, so it does little to compensate for the coverage 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 names a specific verb pair (recompute, report) and a precise resource (the Merkle evidence root of a sealed episode), so an agent can tell it is a cryptographic integrity check rather than a lineage or policy tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling verify_immune_lineage, but the resource is distinct enough to disambiguate.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling verification tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that the episode must already be sealed). The agent must infer the trigger condition from the verb alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that verification is link-by-link and independent of session state, but omits side effects, read-only vs mutating nature, error behavior, and return characteristics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for the stated purpose and every clause earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is missing critical context: what an entry must contain, what verification checks, and what the agent should expect as a result. It is too sparse 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter (entries). The description only calls it a 'lineage entry list' without explaining the expected object shape, required fields, or link structure, so it adds minimal meaning 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 states a specific verb (Verify) and resource (exported lineage entry list) and adds a scope condition (link by link, without trusting session state). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like export_immune_lineage_report, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_episode_evidence or export_immune_lineage_report. The phrase 'without trusting this session's state' hints at a scenario but does not state when or when not to call it.

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