coc_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists specific checks (sequence numbering, data_hash, prev_hash, entry_hash, genesis block) and the return format (JSON report with is_valid, entry_count, etc.), which is transparent enough for an agent to understand behavior.

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 with bullet points for checks and a clear statement of return type. Every sentence adds value 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 an output schema (indicated in context signals), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the checks performed and the structure of the output. No gaps.

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, so baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; it correctly focuses on the tool's operation.

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's purpose: 'Verify the integrity of a Chain of Consciousness chain.' It specifies the resource (CoC chain) and action (verify integrity), and distinguishes from sibling tools like coc_add (add entries) and coc_init (initialize chain).

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 when to use this tool (after chain operations to verify integrity) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, the context signals and sibling names provide implicit guidance.

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