memory_verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that it is 'Read-only'. It also discloses important behavioral details: the verification uses the machine's trusted signing key (not the embedded key), and explains the four possible statuses (verified, unsigned, tampered, untrusted) with a definition of 'untrusted'. This provides transparency beyond annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence contributes unique information: the verification process, modes, return format, and read-only nature. No redundant or vague phrasing; it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (per-memory status + summary dict). All 5 parameters are covered in the schema, and the description adds context for batch mode and key trust. Given the tool's complexity, this is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that omitting 'id' triggers batch verification, and it clarifies the 'trusted_pubkeys' parameter as 'additional trusted signer public keys ... a memory signed by any of these ... verifies instead of reading untrusted'. This gives semantic meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 begins with 'Verify the signed provenance envelope of memories: recomputes each content_hash and ed25519-checks the signature against THIS machine's trusted signing key', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cryptographic verification, unlike other memory tools that perform different actions (e.g., query, update, delete).

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 states 'Verify one by id, or a batch by scope/namespace', providing clear usage modes. It explains the distinction between 'untrusted' and 'tampered' statuses, offering context for interpreting results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but this is not critical given its unique purpose.

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