soul_verify

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. It only says 'verify,' which implies a read operation, but does not specify the output format or behavior on tamper detection. No contradictions with annotations exist, but the description is too sparse for full transparency.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the main verb and object. It avoids unnecessary words and efficiently conveys the tool's core function and purpose.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or what 'verify' entails. It does not clarify the output, the verification process, or any additional context about the hash chain. For a simple but potentially compliance-critical tool, more information is needed.

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 input schema provides a description for the single parameter 'agent_id' ('Agent to verify'), so schema coverage is high. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function with a specific verb ('Verify') and a well-defined resource ('agent event hash chain integrity'). It also provides the purpose ('tamper detection for EU AI Act compliance'), which distinguishes it from siblings like soul_profile or soul_leaderboard that serve different functions.

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 implies usage for tamper detection and compliance verification, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context of EU AI Act compliance suggests a use case, but no direct guidance is provided.

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