verify_aps_txt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'checks signature and DID consistency' but does not describe return values (e.g., boolean, error object), behavior on invalid input, or any side effects. For a verification tool without output schema, agents need this information to act on results. The description is insufficiently transparent.

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 sentence of 10 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is not padded with unnecessary words. However, conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details, but for the length it achieves clarity.

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 tool performs verification of a structured file with no output schema, the description should explain expected return format, interpretation of results, and any prerequisites (e.g., content must be valid JSON). It lacks these details, and with many sibling verify tools, more context is needed for agents to use it effectively.

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 have schema descriptions (content and publicKey) with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the content being 'signed' and the public key being 'Ed25519', but does not elaborate on expected JSON structure or key format. It adds marginal value beyond the schema, so baseline 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 verifies a signed aps.txt file, checking signature and DID consistency. The verb 'verify' and resource 'aps.txt file' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling verify tools like aps_verify_attribution_consent, which could cause confusion for an AI agent selecting the correct tool.

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 does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases (e.g., after generation), or scenarios where sibling tools would be more appropriate. Given many verify siblings, this omission increases risk of incorrect tool selection.

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