rekor_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the operation (verification, returning entry details if found) and implies read-only behavior. However, it could explicitly state that it is non-destructive or read-only.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and is appropriately concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the input (hash) and output (entry details if found). It is complete enough, though it could briefly mention that no result indicates the hash is not recorded.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema description for the 'hash' parameter already provides the same detail as the tool description (SHA256 hash with optional 'sha256:' prefix). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.

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 'Verify', the resource 'SHA256 artifact hash', and the system 'Rekor transparency log', with the outcome 'returning entry details if found'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like rekor_entry (get specific entry) and rekor_search (search by criteria).

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 usage for verifying a hash presence, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., for broader searches). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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