notary__reveal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses strict verification ('one bit of drift fails') and behavior on late reveals ('expire the commitment'). However, it omits side effects (e.g., whether revealing mutates state) and conditions like commitment existence.

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 concise: two sentences plus a category prefix. Every sentence adds critical information—purpose, verification strictness, return value, and expiration—without redundancy. 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?

For a reveal tool, the description covers purpose, return type, verification condition, and expiration. It lacks prerequisites (must have a commitment) and error conditions, but given the output schema absence, it provides adequate completeness for most agents.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'digest + salt' and 'commitment_id' implicitly via context, but does not specify formats (e.g., hex, base64) or constraints. This provides baseline guidance but is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 action ('Reveal'), the resource ('committed content'), and the output ('delivery_proof string for escrow release'). It also distinguishes itself by noting that 'Late reveals expire the commitment,' setting it apart from sibling tools like notary__commit, notary__commitment_status, and notary__verify.

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 usage after a handover ('after handover') and warns about late reveals causing expiration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives. The sibling context partially compensates, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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