fidelitypass_verify_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that N/A can be returned and that missing bytes, stale metadata, or prose-only AI proof cannot PASS, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about whether recomputation writes a receipt, side effects, auth/scope requirements, or the shape of the verdict returned.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the verdict recomputation and the N/A outcome are front-loaded. Efficient, though the second sentence is a dense caveat list rather than a structured statement.

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 16-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core outcome but leaves the return format (what a verdict/receipt contains) and mutation/auth behavior unaddressed, which an agent would need to act confidently.

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 all 16 parameters (including enums for mode and copy_scope, and the nested copyroom_source_packet) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the raw-bytes intent but no parameter-level meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Recompute') and resource ('FidelityCopy/FidelityPass verdict') with source and output bytes named as inputs. It implicitly distinguishes itself from fidelitycopy_copy (which creates a copy) by being the recompute/verification step, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 gives one when-not condition ('N/A when no exact 1:1 copy is in scope') and a failure caveat about missing bytes/stale metadata/prose-only proof. It stops short of stating when to reach for this tool versus fidelitycopy_copy, copypass_run, or qc_copy_audit.

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