Verify Mogrt Artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the exact check performed and the important negative guarantees about what it does not prove.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verification statement followed by explicit limitations. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple read-only verification tool with rich annotations, complete parameter schema, and an output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It clarifies the exact scope and non-scope, and return values are covered by the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the workspace-contained nature but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb (Verify) and resource (.mogrt artifact), and states the exact technical scope: local presence plus ZIP header. The negative list (does not prove controls, import compatibility, playback, or visual correctness) distinguishes it from sibling validation and preview tools without needing to name them.

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 as a lightweight pre-flight existence/format check, and its negative list helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like validate_mogrt_brand_kit or preview_mogrt_recipe, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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