zipviz_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose fail-closed semantics: a verdict not attributable to ZipViz's verifier reads as 'unknown', never a pass or failure. That is genuinely useful behavioral context. It still omits auth/permission needs, rate limits, and result shape, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the mechanism and the interpretation rule. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and every sentence contributes.

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 four-required-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and adds the important tri-state verdict semantics (pass/fail/unknown). It falls short on return structure and failure modes, which the agent must otherwise infer.

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 all four parameters (domain, message, signature, timestamp) are documented in the schema itself and the description adds no syntax or format detail. It does reinforce that the verdict is bound to the domain argument, which is slightly more than a bare restatement, but the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (verify a signed message) and names the cryptographic mechanism (Ed25519 signature against the agent's registered public key). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling zipviz_sign_message, but never names or differentiates itself from zipviz_explain_verification or the other siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation described: you have a signed message plus a domain, and you want a verdict. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. that the signer must be registered), and no routing to zipviz_explain_verification for interpreting results.

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