disclosure-compiler__verify_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explain behavioral traits. It mentions the tool recomputes hashes and invariants, implying a read-only verification, but does not clarify authorization requirements, rate limits, side effects, or output format. This is insufficient for an unannotated 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with essential information. The bracket prefix adds context but could be shortened. Overall, it is efficient and clear.

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 the tool's purpose and required input but omits details about the return value or output format. Given the simplicity (one parameter) and existence of sibling verification tools, it is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema has one parameter (result_json) with no description, but the tool description explains it as 'the prior result as JSON', adding meaning beyond the schema. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's action ('Recompute') and the resources it operates on (audit hash, notary payload, structural invariants, framework-pack currency). It also mentions the context (disclosure-compiler) and the framework standards, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like compile_disclosure or get_framework.

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 indicates that the tool requires a prior result as JSON ('Pass the prior result as JSON'), which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other verification tools (e.g., ghg-ledger__verify_result) or when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity.

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