generate_evidence_bundle

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the output components (receipts, proofs, checkpoint) and purpose (offline verification). However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication, or whether it is read-only (likely safe).

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 with two sentences that front-load the main action. It contains no fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list) for clarity.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview of what the bundle contains and how it is used. Minor gaps: no mention of prerequisites (like needing a chain) or the bundle's size/format.

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, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool outputs and its purpose, which is more than the schema provides. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'canonical SEP evidence bundle', detailing its content (signed receipts, Merkle proofs, signed checkpoint). It distinguishes from the sibling 'verify_bundle_offline' by specifying this is for generation.

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 the use case: 'for offline third-party verification'. Mentions verification methods (verify_bundle_offline, etc.) and a key prerequisite (pin gateway_public_key). Does not include when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond verify_bundle_offline.

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