verify_snapshot

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

The description discloses that it is read-only, reads from the export directory, validates schema, redaction status, and content SHA-256, and returns validity, schema version, and checksum. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and gives the agent a solid model of what happens.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, logically organized, and every sentence contributes either behavioral detail or workflow context. No filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only verification tool, the description covers what it operates on, what it validates, what it returns, and when to invoke it. No output schema is needed because the return type is summarized clearly.

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%, and the parameter description in the schema exactly matches the description text. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and names both the resource ('schema and checksum of a confined snapshot export') and the validation actions. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the snapshot-related sibling export_portable_snapshot.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use after export_portable_snapshot to confirm the file is intact and secret-free.' This gives clear contextual guidance and leaves no ambiguity about its place in the workflow.

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