wm_verify

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', describes the verification checks performed, and discloses the return format (JSON with pass/fail details). It omits error-handling or performance caveats, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool the disclosure is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a read-only note. Every clause adds essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool's complexity is very low (no params, no output schema), and the description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. An agent has enough information to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The no-parameter nature is implicitly clear, and the baseline for tools with no parameters is 4.

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 action ('Verify the integrity of the audit trail') and the specific resources it checks (hash-chained journal, run manifests). It also describes the output as pass/fail JSON, which further distinguishes it from sibling tools like wm_health or wm_audit.

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 gives two concrete situations to use the tool: before trusting previous clean/rollback history or after suspecting manual edits to the journal. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the provided context is sufficient for most agent decision-making.

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