telos_verify

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it recomputes the integrity hash, is key-free, not a signature check, and returns specific fields. This is sufficient transparency for a read-only verification, though potential errors or side effects are not mentioned.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is concise but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'receipt' mentioned multiple times). Overall, it earns its length without being verbose.

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 an implied output schema, the description is quite complete, covering the return keys and the verification process. It lacks error handling info, but given the tool's simplicity, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 provides only a type: string for receipt_json. The description adds that it can be a JSON string or object, and describes the return dict in detail. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though more precise format requirements could help.

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 verifies an unsigned integrity-hash receipt offline, using a specific contract. It explains the action and distinguishes from a signature check. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like telos_score or telos_audit, leaving the AI to infer context.

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 usage via phrases like 'offline' and 'key-free', suggesting it is for verification without keys. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., telos_score for scoring, telos_audit for auditing). No when-not-to or exclusion criteria are provided.

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