verify_audit_chain

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavioral details: it explains the HMAC chaining, traverses the full chain, and reports broken links. It also gives return format.

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?

Three concise paragraphs, each serving a purpose: purpose, mechanism, return format. No unnecessary 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?

No output schema, but the description provides the return structure. The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description covers all necessary aspects.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds context about the tool's behavior, which is sufficient.

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 purpose: verifying cryptographic integrity of the audit log chain. It uses specific technical language (HMAC-SHA256 chaining) and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_audit_logs.

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 when to use (when integrity check is needed) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives. Given the tool's specificity, this is clear enough.

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