ep_verify_commit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description reinforces read-only nature and adds detail on what verification entails and what output fields are returned. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with key information front-loaded. No redundant phrases. Efficiently conveys purpose, behavior, and usage guidance.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. Minor omission: does not mention what happens if the commit doesn't exist (error behavior) but acceptable for this complexity.

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% and provides the parameter description 'Commit ID (epc_...)'. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Describes a specific verb (verify) and resource (commit), with explicit details on what it does: checks signature, status, validity, and returns valid/invalid along with status, decision, expiry. Distinguishes from sibling tools like ep_get_commit_status which likely only retrieves status.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use before relying on or consuming a commit to confirm it is genuine and still active.' No mention of alternatives but given clear purpose, this is sufficient.

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