verify_aps_txt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies the verification checks but does not disclose output format, read-only nature, error behavior, or potential side effects. For a verification tool, the absence of any statement about result type or failure handling is a notable gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters, but the description omits the output format and any usage guidance, and there is no output schema to compensate. It is minimally viable for selecting the tool but incomplete for fully predicting invocation results.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (content as aps.txt JSON, publicKey as Ed25519 hex key). The description adds the concepts of 'signed' and 'DID consistency,' but it does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the existing schema descriptions. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and names the exact resource ('signed aps.txt file'), and it states what the verification entails ('checks signature and DID consistency'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_aps_txt or other verify_* tools.

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 it should be used to verify a signed aps.txt file, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., verify_charter, verify_issuer) or provide any exclusion criteria. This is implied rather than explicit guidance.

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