covenant__verify_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only verification but does not clarify if the operation is destructive, what the return value is, or any authentication or rate limit considerations. The phrase 'tamper-evident' hints at cryptographic verification but lacks specifics.

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 very brief, consisting of one sentence with a prefix. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While concise, it could include more detail without detracting from clarity.

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?

Given no output schema and only one parameter, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the audit chain is, what constitutes a successful verification, or the format of the result. The agent lacks information about the tool's output or any preconditions.

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 description does not mention the sole parameter 'covenant_id'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning, but it fails to explain what covenant_id refers to or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional context.

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 specifies the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'tamper-evident audit chain of allowed/denied acts'. This provides a clear purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like covenant__covenant_status or covenant__check_act, which address different aspects of covenants.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other covenant tools such as covenant__covenant_status or covenant__list_covenants.

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