peer_witness

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no context about what side effects occur (e.g., creation of a witness record, consent requirements). The word 'Free' is unhelpful. The description does not contradict annotations but fails to add meaningful behavioral details.

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 fluff, but it is too brief to convey necessary information. It is not front-loaded with the most critical purpose or usage context. The structure is flat and lacks organization.

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?

Despite high schema coverage, the tool has 15 parameters including nested objects and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value, when to set optional params, or how the witnessing process works. It is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to the 'mode' parameter by mentioning 'relational modes and challenge guardrails', but does not explain other parameters like risk, focus, consent, or custody. Minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 states 'witness another' which is a specific verb+resource, but it is vague about what witnessing entails and mentions 'quotes, relational modes, and challenge guardrails' which do not clearly match the schema's mode enum. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'peer_witness_bidirectional', leaving ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'peer_witness_bidirectional' or other witness-related tools. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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