report_precommit

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

The description says 'Append' and 'timeline can't be rewritten', indicating a write operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (and idempotentHint=true). This is a direct contradiction. Although the description adds useful context about hash-chaining and non-storage, the contradiction overrides any positive value.

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?

Two sentences, ~30 words, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. No fluff or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers core behavior (append, hash-chaining, verdict) but lacks detail on the structure of the returned verdict, especially since there is no output schema. The annotation contradiction also leaves side effects unclear. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a small insight that raw returns aren't stored, which helps understand the new_returns parameter's fate, but it doesn't add further parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('pre-commitment's tamper-evident chain') and clearly states the outcome ('get the current verdict'). This distinguishes it from siblings like report_returns by emphasizing the pre-commitment context and hash-chaining.

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 the tool is for appending returns to a pre-commitment and notes key behavioral aspects (hash-chained timeline, raw returns not stored). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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