provenance__verify_artifact

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only verification (recompute and compare), which is clear, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior on verification failure.

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 that front-loads the purpose via a bracketed category prefix. It is efficient and contains no unnecessary words, though the prefix may be slightly extraneous for an AI agent.

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 single opaque parameter and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected structure of the artifact object or what the verification result looks like, making successful invocation difficult.

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 description provides no information about the 'artifact' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage and a schema that only specifies an object with no constraints, the tool user has no guidance on what fields are required or accepted.

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 ('recompute and verify') and the resource ('artifact record hash') against a specific target ('DAG ledger'). It effectively differentiates from sibling provenance tools like verify_certificate and get_artifact.

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 for verifying artifact hash integrity, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_certificate or lineage. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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