provenance__verify_certificate

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

The description discloses the core behavior (recomputing hash and checking ledger), implying a read-only verification. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden, but it does not detail side effects, safety, or error states. Basic transparency is provided.

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 with one informative sentence plus a domain prefix. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. However, it could be more structured by listing expected input fields.

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 absence of output schema, no annotations, and a vague parameter object, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the verification result (e.g., boolean, status object) or provide enough context for an 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?

The single parameter 'certificate' is a generic object with no defined properties and 0% schema description coverage. The description only mentions 'recompute its content hash' but does not specify the object structure, required fields, or format, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 verb 'verify' and resource 'certificate', and explains the action: recompute its content hash and check the ledger. The prefix provides domain context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'provenance__verify_artifact' or 'offsets__verify_certificate'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or any comparison with sibling tools.

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