validate_roundtrip_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It proactively discloses the tool's non-writing behavior and the invariant result fields (authority=user_supplied, grants_high_trust=false), which goes beyond a generic 'validates' statement. It does not mention failure behavior or permissions, but the disclosed details are valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure efficiently communicates purpose and a key result invariant.

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?

Despite a nested input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral constraints (non-mutating, fixed result) and the core validation subject. It is a bit thin on usage context relative to siblings, but the output schema likely fills return-value details, making this adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'path' or 'evidence' parameters or how they relate to 'roles' and 'SHA bindings.' The schema itself has descriptive property text, but the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond a vague hint, leaving a notable gap.

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 the specific verb 'Validate' and clearly identifies the resource: 'distinct allowed-root evidence roles and exact SHA bindings.' The phrase 'without writing' distinguishes this from the sibling record_roundtrip_evidence, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 conveys clear context through 'without writing,' implying this is a non-mutating validation for dry-run or pre-commit checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like record_roundtrip_evidence or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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