aga_verify_artifact

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's function but lacks behavioral details such as what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns a boolean, error messages), whether it's read-only (implied by 'verify'), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('verify') and key elements. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., return values, error conditions) and usage context. For a verification tool with cryptographic implications, more information on success/failure states and prerequisites is needed for adequate agent guidance.

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%, with parameters 'artifact' and 'issuer_public_key' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format details for 'artifact' or key encoding). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('verify') and the target ('artifact signature'), and identifies the verification method ('against an issuer public key'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'aga_create_artifact' (creation) and 'aga_revoke_artifact' (revocation), but could be more specific about what 'verify' entails (e.g., cryptographic validation).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aga_verify_bundle' (which might verify bundles rather than individual artifacts). The description implies usage for signature verification but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid artifact and key) or exclusions.

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