verify_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the core behavior (verification and hash matching) but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or idempotence, which are important for an agent to use it correctly.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement, a usage context, and a parameter list. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information.

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 what the tool does and why to use it. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not required. However, it omits potential prerequisites or side effects, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and origin (signature_id from complete_action or sign_action, expected_output as the string to verify). This adds significant meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: verifying a signature and confirming the output_hash matches expected_output. It is distinct from siblings like verify_signature and check_policy, which focus on different aspects of verification.

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 a clear use case (detecting post-sign tampering) and references source of signature_id from related actions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternative tools.

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