coc_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it checks sequence numbering, data hash validity, prev_hash linkage, entry hash, and genesis block structure. It also describes the return format, providing transparency about what happens when the tool runs.

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 brief purpose statement, a bulleted list of checks, and a clear description of the return value. 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 the absence of parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. It is comprehensive for a parameterless verification tool.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter usage. The tool is self-contained, and the description clarifies its behavior sufficiently.

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 what is checked (sequence numbering, hashes, genesis block) and what is returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like coc_status (which likely shows status without verification).

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 usage for verifying chain integrity but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like coc_status or coc_tail. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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