seal_obligations

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

Beyond annotations that already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful context: it reports breaches that are already on the chain and cannot hide them. It also clarifies the exact conditions for verdict=met, which is genuinely useful behavioral information.

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 tight and front-loaded with the core scanning purpose, then explains verdict logic and the return shape. The final 'Read-only.' is redundant with the annotations but harmless; otherwise every sentence contributes necessary context.

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 zero-parameter, read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the return object fields, the meaning of verdict=met, and the non-mutating nature of the operation. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on result semantics instead.

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 identifies the action ('sweep every declared duty for silence') and the resource (obligations), and explains the verdict semantics. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like seal_verify or seal_get, but the role of a global audit/report operation is clear enough to distinguish it.

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 when this tool should be used: to check whether any declared duties are unsealed, owed, missed, or unconfirmed. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives, so the usage guidance is left to inference.

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