verify_episode_evidence

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.