verify_immune_lineage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Verify') but does not disclose what verification entails (e.g., whether it mutates state, requires specific permissions, or what happens on failure). It also does not mention the return value or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and no fluff. The optional comparison is stated concisely. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a successful verification, what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, report, error), or any constraints on the 'entries' array. An agent cannot fully infer the expected behavior or result, leaving critical gaps in operational understanding.

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 provides some meaning: 'entries' are the lineage entry list, and 'expectedHeadHash' is the 'independently retained expected head hash.' However, it does not elaborate on the structure of the entries (e.g., required fields, format) or the precise semantics of the hash beyond being a comparison target. It adds value but leaves important details undefined.

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 a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('exported lineage entry list'), with the mode of operation ('link by link') and an optional comparison to an expected head hash. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_episode_evidence (which is about episodes) and export_immune_lineage_report (export vs verify), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 implies the tool is used when you have an exported lineage entry list to verify, and mentions the optional comparison to an expected head hash. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., verify_episode_evidence) or provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough to infer general usage, but explicit routing to siblings is absent.

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