soma_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key traits: verification is offline, the algorithm is Ed25519, and the public key is embedded with the signature. It does not describe error behavior or explicitly confirm read-only safety, but the output schema likely covers return values and the core invocation behavior is clear.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter verification tool.

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 is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and verification mechanism but leaves input format details undocumented, which is a clear gap given 0% schema description coverage for envelope_json.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies the envelope contains a signature and public key, but provides no field names, JSON structure, or encoding details needed to construct a valid envelope_json.

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 states a specific verb ('Проверить подпись') and resource ('конверта'), plus scope ('офлайн') and algorithm ('Ed25519'). The action is clearly distinct from sibling operations like soma_send, soma_route, or soma_claim, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and does not name any alternative sibling tool. 'Офлайн' is a capability note, not routing guidance for choosing this tool over others.

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