audit_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the verification behavior and what tampering it can detect, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., is it read-only?), permissions required, cost, or output format. It is partially transparent but leaves notable gaps.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the optional parameter. There is no wasted wording, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose and parameter usage adequately. It lacks information about return values, error states, or what happens on verification failure, but for a verification tool, the description is reasonably complete.

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 significantly enriches the schema-defined parameter 'expected_head' by explaining its purpose (catching specific tampering scenarios) and revealing a fallback to an environment variable when omitted. The schema only provides type and default; the description adds critical context.

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 tool's purpose: verify the tamper-evident audit ledger's hash chain to prove the log is intact. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('audit ledger's hash chain'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'pbs_verify_start' which may have a different scope.

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 explains when to use the 'expected_head' parameter (to catch tail truncation, forged tail-append, or full file replacement) and notes that a forward walk alone cannot detect these issues. It also mentions fallback to an environment variable. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare it directly to siblings.

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