Fingerprint Observable Behavior

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is stable and excludes run metadata, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, output format, or error handling. This adds some useful context but leaves gaps.

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?

Description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose and key behavioral trait.

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?

Tool is simple (one string input), but the description omits the meaning of the trace parameter and the return format of the fingerprint. It provides enough for basic selection but is not fully complete for invocation.

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 single 'trace' parameter is undocumented in the schema, and the description's phrase 'scenario status and observations' does not explicitly connect to the 'trace' argument. The description does not clarify what should be passed in the trace parameter or its format.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action ('Create a stable SHA-256 fingerprint') and identifies the resource/scope ('scenario status and observations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (render/validate/compare/explain) by its hash-generation purpose.

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?

Implies usage for fingerprinting scenario state but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like behaviorlock_compare. The 'excluding run metadata' hints at a comparison use case, but no direct when-to-use guidance is given.

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