owp_verify_surface_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: no writing or signing. However, it does not explain what 'replay' entails, whether reads or network access occur, or what failure states look like, leaving the behavioral profile incomplete.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'Verify and replay' and then the key qualifier 'without writing or signing'. There is no filler or repeated information from the schema.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described, but the description still omits usage context and package_path semantics. With no annotations and no parameter documentation, an agent has to infer too much to reliably select and invoke this tool.

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 sole parameter, package_path, has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description never mentions it explicitly. The phrase 'one surface bundle' loosely implies that package_path points to a bundle, but the description does not clarify the expected path type or 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?

The description uses a specific verb+object pair, 'Verify and replay one surface bundle', and adds the important qualifier 'without writing or signing'. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes its non-mutating nature from many verification-related sibling tools.

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 'without writing or signing' clause implies a safe verification context, but the description never states when to choose this tool over owp_run_verification, owp_verify_work_order, owp_verify_nested_claim, or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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