record_file_evidence

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

The annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but say little else. The description adds the key behavioral rule that pass/fail only occurs with an explicit expected hash. However, it does not clarify what side effects occur when evidence is recorded or what happens in the absence of an expected hash beyond what the schema already states.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation and the critical conditional behavior efficiently.

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?

With an output schema and fully documented parameters, the tool is largely invocable from the description. However, it lacks contextual guidance about its role in the verification workflow or alternatives like record_attestation, and the phrase 'observed pass or fail' is left somewhat ambiguous without additional context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying expected_sha256 to the pass/fail outcome, reinforcing the conditional behavior. This goes slightly beyond the schema's documentation and helps the agent understand parameter intent.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Hash a project file'. It also clarifies the verification semantics with the pass/fail condition, which distinguishes it from generic hashing. However, it does not explicitly mention 'record evidence' or differentiate itself from sibling tools like record_attestation.

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 by explaining when pass/fail is observed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as record_attestation or assess_completion. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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