chamber_verify

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool reports sources that no longer exist or whose text changed, and that it does not change conclusions. It explicitly states 'Read-only' matching annotations and clarifies the meaning of results, providing useful context.

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 two concise sentences, with the main action front-loaded. The second sentence adds conceptual context without redundancy.

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?

This tool has a simple optional param, no output schema, and annotations cover read-only/idempotent. The description explains what the tool reports and the meaning of results, making it complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'since' with its purpose and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter information, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 re-checks stored beliefs' pinned sources against the current corpus and reports those whose evidence moved, specifying outcome types (not_found, hash_mismatch). It identifies this as drift detection, which distinctively separates it from sibling tools like chamber_ask and chamber_corpus.

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 explains that the tool is for drift detection, providing clear context for when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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