Verify pinned tools against the lock

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds key behavioral details: 'Read-only: it never re-pins, never edits the lock, and never fetches anything over the network.' This reinforces the safety profile and aligns perfectly with annotations.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then provides a succinct list of outcomes. Every sentence earns its place.

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's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no required params, high schema coverage), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, behavior, and output interpretation. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the 'requireSigned' parameter well. The description does not add new semantic information about the parameter beyond listing possible output states (which relate to behavior, not parameter meaning). Thus, baseline score of 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 uses specific verbs ('re-derive', 'report') and resource ('every skill and MCP server pinned in this truecopy lock'), and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'truecopy-status' by focusing on verification vs general status.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this before trusting a tool surface' and provides a use case ('has anything changed underneath me?'). While it doesn't include when-not-to-use or alternative tools, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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