verify_evidence_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the three possible outcomes (verified, stale, failed), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says whether the operation is read-only or whether verification mutates the bundle's stored state, nor what distinguishes 'stale' from 'failed'.

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 zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the outcome list. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the status vocabulary but leaves side effects, failure semantics, and the meaning of the workspace hint unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding whether it is safe to call.

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 bundleId and workspacePath are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about what the optional workspacePath hint changes or how it interacts with the live workspace check; 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 ('Re-checks') and precise resources ('Git state and file hashes against live workspace'), which clearly separates it from the creation/recording siblings like create_evidence_bundle or capture_git_evidence. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 name and 'Re-checks ... an evidence bundle' framing imply this is the post-hoc verification counterpart to bundle creation, but the description never states when to choose it over re-snapshotting or when verification is unnecessary. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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