provenance__verify_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions recomputing and verifying but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, required permissions, side effects on failure, or any rate limits. Behavioral context is minimal.

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, but it includes a bracketed prefix that appears to be a category tag rather than part of the description. While concise, this prefix may confuse. The description could be clearer without it.

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 complexity of a generic object parameter and no output schema, the description fails to cover return values, error scenarios, or required input structure. Significant gaps remain for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema defines the artifact parameter as a generic object with no properties. The description provides no guidance on what fields the artifact object should contain, leaving the agent unable to construct valid input.

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 artifact record hash and verify against DAG ledger. The verb-resource pair is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like provenance__verify_certificate, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or examples provided. The description implies verification but does not specify when verification is appropriate.

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