notary__reveal

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it verifies against the commitment (one bit drift fails), returns a delivery_proof string, and that late reveals expire the commitment. This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and constraints.

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 core description is efficient in three sentences, but the leading bracketed prefix '[notary — commit-reveal verifiable delivery proofs]' adds redundant domain context that is already clear from the tool name and sibling tools.

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 purpose, behavior, and output, but lacks detailed parameter semantics (e.g., what format is the salt, how to obtain commitment_id). For a three-param tool with no output schema, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description only mentions 'committed content's digest + salt', partially explaining the content_digest and salt parameters. The commitment_id parameter is not explained at all, leaving a significant gap.

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 reveals committed content (digest + salt) after handover, verifies against the commitment, and returns a delivery_proof for escrow release. It distinguishes from sibling tools like notary__commit and notary__verify by focusing on the reveal step.

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 specifies 'after handover' which indicates timing, and mentions that late reveals expire the commitment, providing a caution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools.

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