Verify Agent Provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds beyond that by stating it "does not alter or replay the session" and by enumerating the returned artifacts (verification status, sealed-turn count, signature details), which tells the agent what verification actually reports.

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?

One compact sentence pair with the action and key parameter front-loaded, followed by the return payload and the non-mutation guarantee. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the three returned items. For a single-parameter read tool that is nearly complete; only failure modes (e.g., what happens for an unknown or unsealed session_id) are left unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines session_id. The description only restates that verification is keyed on session_id and adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (a Bee agentic coding session) keyed on session_id, and names what the result contains. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling tool by name, though the sibling set is mostly unrelated, so the gap is minor.

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?

"Use to verify a Bee agentic coding session by session_id" gives the triggering context, so usage is implied, but there are no explicit when-not conditions and no alternative tool is named for adjacent needs (e.g., inspecting a session vs. verifying it).

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