aga_verify_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'offline' verification and '4-step' process, hinting at behavioral traits like no network dependency and a structured workflow. However, it lacks details on what the steps involve, error handling, or output format, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action ('Verify evidence bundle offline - 4-step verification'), but the parenthetical '(Section J)' adds ambiguity without clear value. Overall, it's concise with little wasted text, though the unclear reference slightly reduces effectiveness.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what verification entails, the result format, or error conditions. For a verification tool with undefined inputs, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'bundle' parameter (what it contains or format) or 'pinned_public_key' (its role in verification). The mention of 'Section J' might relate to parameters but is unclear. Without param details, the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 states the tool performs '4-step verification' on an 'evidence bundle offline', which gives a vague purpose. It mentions 'Section J' but doesn't explain what that refers to. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'aga_verify_artifact' by specifying 'bundle' verification, it lacks clarity on what 'verify' entails or what an 'evidence bundle' is.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include 'aga_verify_artifact', which likely verifies individual artifacts, but the description doesn't clarify the distinction or specify prerequisites like needing a bundle from 'aga_export_bundle'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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