coc_anchor

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

Without annotations, the description fully covers behavioral details: SHA-256 computation, two timestamping services, confirmation times (1-12 hours for OTS, immediate for TSA), network requirement, and no credentials. It lacks information on error conditions or edge cases but is otherwise 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 concise and well-structured: a summary sentence, technical details, timing, requirements, and return format. Every sentence adds necessary information 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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. However, it could mention that the chain file must already exist (perhaps initialized via coc_init), but this is implied by sibling tools.

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?

There are zero parameters in the input schema, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining that no credentials are needed, but since there are no parameters to describe, this score 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 submits the current chain hash for external timestamping, specifying the verb 'submit' and resource 'chain hash'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like coc_verify and coc_status by its unique purpose of creating timestamp proofs.

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 the tool's function and requirements (network access, no credentials) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide prerequisites. It adequately explains the context but lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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