hive__verify_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a key behavioral trait (never trusts the embedded hash), which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Given the simple nature, more disclosure would be beneficial.

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, consisting of a single sentence plus a bracketed prefix. The prefix provides context about the hive system but is not strictly necessary for tool usage. The sentence is clear and efficient, with no wasted words.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description should fully explain what the tool does and returns. It explains the core logic but does not specify the return format (e.g., a boolean, a string, or object indicating match or mismatch). Error conditions or prerequisites are also omitted. This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'audit_json' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention the parameter name or provide format details. 'Presented lineage' is vague and does not explicitly map to the parameter. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 purpose: to recompute an audit digest from a given lineage, never trusting the embedded hash, and report whether it matches a job the hive ran. The verb 'recompute' and 'report' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like hive__audit_job by emphasizing the distrust of the embedded hash.

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 does not explicitly guide on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hive__audit_job or other verification tools. It implies usage for verifying audit integrity, but lacks explicit context or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling list includes many similar tools, so clearer guidance would help.

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