verify_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the return shape ('Returns {"ok", "verified", "kind"}'), the failure mode ('fails if any record or link was altered'), and that the operation happens offline. It stops short of explicitly stating verification is non-destructive, a minor gap given 'verify' implies it.

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 compact — purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the parameter and then the return/failure behavior. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a one-parameter verification tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, input format, return shape, and failure behavior — nearly everything needed to call it correctly. Minor gaps like the possible values of 'kind' are left to the output schema, which is acceptable per the rubric.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents 'records' as 'the JSON Lines text of an answer-record or run-record log,' adding format and content meaning the schema lacks. It doesn't specify the exact structure of a valid record, but for a single string parameter the added semantics are substantial.

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 ('Verify a log of records offline') with concrete scope ('every hash, every link, every signature'), so an agent can tell exactly what operation this performs. It also distinguishes this from the siblings verify_run and verify_answer by clarifying that it accepts both answer-record and run-record logs.

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 noting the tool accepts 'an answer-record or run-record log,' which hints it covers the domains of both siblings. However, it never names verify_run or verify_answer or gives an explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use rule, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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