provenance__verify_certificate

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the core behavior: recompute content hash and check against ledger. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or potential errors, but the described steps are informative.

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 and front-loaded with context in brackets. However, it is slightly underspecified by not including parameter details, which could be added without making it verbose.

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 (nested object parameter, no output schema), the description lacks detail on input format, return value, and error conditions. The agent cannot fully determine how to invoke or interpret results.

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 does not mention the input parameter 'certificate' or its structure. The schema defines it as an object with additionalProperties true, but the agent gets no guidance on what fields are expected, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 specifies the verb 'Verify' and resource 'certificate', and adds the specific actions 'recompute its content hash and check the ledger', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'provenance__get_certificate' or 'provenance__verify_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 certificate integrity, but does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools like 'offsets__verify_certificate' in a different namespace.

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