loopgrid.verify_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'verify' without stating whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a clear alternative. No wasted words, and the main action 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and an alternative, but it lacks behavioral details like what verification entails, what the response indicates, and any prerequisites. With no annotations and no parameter descriptions, it is not fully 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 does not mention the parameter 'decision_id' at all, and the schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter name, which is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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: to verify the decision's signed workspace chain via the connected LoopGrid service. It is specific (verb 'verify' + resource 'signed workspace chain') and differentiates from the standalone verifier, which is a separate offline tool. It also naturally distinguishes from sibling recording tools by being a verification action.

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 explicitly provides an alternative usage: for independent offline verification of an exported ZIP, use the standalone LoopGrid verifier. This implies the current tool is for online, connected verification. It doesn't explicitly address when to use sibling tools, but those are clearly different (recording actions), so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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