verify_episode_evidence

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

The description discloses that verification without an expected root only proves internal consistency, which is a meaningful behavioral caveat. However, it does not mention side effects, performance implications, or whether the tool mutates state, though the name suggests a read-only verification.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and the optional behavior explained in a single follow-up sentence. No wasted words.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the verification logic but does not describe the return value, error conditions, or the structure of the evidence object. An agent might call it correctly but not know what to expect in response.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the role of expectedRoot (independently retained expected root) but does not detail the evidence object structure or expectedRoot format. The description adds some meaning but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's function: recomputing the Merkle evidence root of a sealed episode. It also distinguishes the optional comparison behavior, which helps an agent understand the core purpose beyond the name.

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 explains when to use the tool and what happens without an expectedRoot, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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