bardo_verify

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it is public and requires no session. This confirms read-only behavior but does not disclose details like error handling or invalid signature response. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose. Every word is necessary, with no superfluous details. Highly 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 verification tool with no output schema, the description provides core functionality and authentication context. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., boolean success or error message) and does not explain what a valid/invalid signature outcome looks like.

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 0%, meaning the description provides no information about the three required parameters (message, signature_b64, public_key_b64). The description must compensate for low coverage but fails to explain parameter formats, constraints, or encoding.

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 tool verifies a signature over a UTF-8 message. It is distinct from sibling tools like bardo_sign (which creates signatures) and bardo_encrypt/decrypt (encryption). The verb 'verify' and resource 'signature' are specific and unambiguous.

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 includes 'Public utility (no session)', indicating no authentication is needed, which guides usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond what is implied by sibling names.

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