verify_tool_descriptor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hashing method (Q3 semantics), the comparison action, and the outputs (current hash and change_detected flag). It also references a security paper for context. No behavioral contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value, including the critical usage directive. No verbose or redundant phrases.

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's complexity (hashing, comparison, security context) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral details. It does not elaborate on parameter formats, but the output schema likely covers return values. It could be more complete if it explained parameter specifics.

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. It implicitly explains the 'descriptor' parameter as the object to hash and 'baseline_hash' as the comparison value, but it does not explicitly describe their structure, format, or constraints. This leaves ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 tool's function: hashing an MCP tool descriptor with Q3 semantics including protocolVersion, then comparing it against a baseline hash to detect changes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_chain_integrity by focusing on tool descriptor drift detection.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Hosts SHOULD call this before forwarding a tool call to detect post-approval descriptor drift'. This tells when to use it, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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