governance_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the hash-chain mechanism, that substitution breaks the chain, and that output is a fingerprint-hash plus a tier histogram. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutating, permission requirements, or failure behavior, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the integrity mechanism and the tamper consequence are front-loaded, followed by output and parameter guidance. Tightly sized for the tool's scope.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth. It names the outputs (hash, tier histogram) and the accepted path forms, but omits what a failure/tamper result looks like and how it relates to sibling verification tools, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does, by defining accepted inputs: an advisor/lens directory or a path to a .jsonl file, which is concrete guidance an agent could not get from the schema.

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+resource: it verifies corpus integrity via a 'Барсик hash-chain' and reports a fingerprint-hash plus tier histogram, which is far more than a restatement of the name. However, it does not differentiate itself from verification-family siblings such as catalog_verify, fidelity_check, or validate_manifest, so an agent cannot tell which verify tool to pick from the description alone.

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 text implies a tamper-detection use case ('подмена рвёт цепь') but never says when to run this versus catalog_verify, validate_manifest, or doctor, nor does it state prerequisites or when not to use it. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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