ep_verify_commit

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. While 'verify' implies non-destructive behavior, it is not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral traits are described.

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 consists of two efficient sentences that immediately convey the action and outcomes. No extraneous words or redundancies are present.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return values (valid/invalid, status, decision, expiry) adequately for a simple tool. However, it lacks explanations for error conditions or what happens if the commit does not exist, leaving minor gaps.

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 already provides a description for commit_id ('Commit ID (epc_...)'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further meaning or context beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 verb 'Verify' and the resource 'commit,' specifying it verifies signature, status, and validity. It distinguishes itself from sibling verify tools (e.g., ep_verify_delegation) by focusing on a commit and listing the return values.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ep_get_commit_status or ep_verify_receipt. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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