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 behavior. It states 'verify', which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not confirm side-effect-free status, required permissions, or what happens on failure. The description adds moderate transparency but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 a single sentence with a front-loaded bracketed context. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter origin, output format, and usage context among siblings. It is slightly above minimal but incomplete for full clarity.

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 description does not mention the covenant_id parameter or explain its role. The agent must infer that covenant_id identifies the audit chain. The description adds no semantics beyond the parameter name.

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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'tamper-evident audit chain of allowed/denied acts', distinguishing it from sibling tools like covenant__check_act and covenant__covenant_status. The bracketed context '[covenant — deny-by-default authority leases]' adds domain-specific clarity.

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 verifying audit chains, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., compute-ledger__verify_chain or provenance__verify_artifact). No exclusions or when-not cases are provided.

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