Verify recorded files still exist and their SHA-256 hashes match a run record to detect silent data drift.
Verify a run record: do the recorded files still exist, and do their hashes still match what was recorded? Detects silent data drift.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_file | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool reads recorded files and compares hashes (implying a non-destructive verification), but says nothing about cost on large files, required permissions, or what happens on mismatch beyond the generic 'detects drift'.
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?
Two compact sentences that front-load the core action and then the payoff ('Detects silent data drift'). No filler or redundancy, though the question-style phrasing is slightly informal for a tool definition.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. What remains missing is any annotation substitute (safety/read-only profile) and any documentation of the run_file parameter's format, leaving the agent to guess how to supply the identifier.
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% for the single required parameter 'run_file', so the schema contributes nothing. The description indirectly frames it as 'a run record', hinting at what the parameter identifies, but gives no format, path convention, or source for the 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 names a specific verb (verify) and resource (run record) and spells out the two concrete checks it performs: file existence and hash match. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling validate_file or from provenance_report, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'Detects silent data drift' suggests a post-hoc integrity check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool named. With validate_file and provenance_report as siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.