C2PA engine and trust-list info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what information is reported (version, media types, trust-list), implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. While it does not explicitly declare safety, 'Report' suggests no side effects. A score of 4 is appropriate as it is clear but could be more explicit about being read-only.

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 key information ('Report the verification engine version, the media types this server can verify, and the active trust-list configuration') followed by a usage hint. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description reasonably covers what the tool does. However, it does not describe the output format or structure (e.g., JSON, fields), which would help the agent interpret results. Slight gap prevents a 5.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the content of the report (version, media types, trust-list), which complements the empty schema. No further parameter detail is needed.

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 explicitly states the tool reports 'verification engine version, media types this server can verify, and active trust-list configuration'. The verb 'Report' clearly indicates a read operation, and the resource is well-defined. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (verify_c2pa_file, verify_c2pa_url, scan_c2pa_directory) which perform verification actions.

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 includes 'Use this to check capabilities before verifying', providing explicit guidance on when to use the tool (before verification). Given the sibling tools are verification-focused, this advice is highly actionable and clarifies context.

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