zetrix_crypto_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'verify' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, the description doesn't explicitly state this. It also omits important behavioral details like what cryptographic algorithm is used, whether the verification is deterministic, what happens on failure (e.g., returns false vs throws error), or any rate limits. For a cryptographic verification tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward verification tool and is front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of cryptographic verification and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean success/failure, detailed validation result), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides no context about the cryptographic ecosystem. For a tool that could have security implications, this leaves too much undefined.

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 description mentions all three parameters (signature, message, public key) but adds no semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage where each parameter has clear descriptions, the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter relationships, formats (beyond 'hex string' for message), or validation requirements. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't add value.

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 with a specific verb ('verify') and identifies the key resources involved (signature, message, public key). It distinguishes this as a verification operation rather than signing or key generation, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like zetrix_crypto_sign and zetrix_crypto_generate_keypair. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings in the description text itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a signature from zetrix_crypto_sign), when verification is appropriate (e.g., after receiving signed data), or what scenarios require this tool over other cryptographic operations. With many sibling tools in the crypto and contract domains, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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