herdr_owned_worker_verification_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add meaningful safety disclosure: 'This is read-only and executes no repository code.' This is genuinely useful beyond what the name conveys. However, it stops there — it doesn't disclose outcomes on digest mismatch, whether prior settlement is required, or whether holding a lease is a precondition.

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 sentences with no filler; the primary return payload is front-loaded in the first sentence and the safety qualifier is tucked efficiently into the second. Nothing extraneous, though the structure is entirely adequate rather than exemplary.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (5 required params, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains neither the parameters' roles nor the expected output shape. An agent cannot independently construct correct values for expected_head/expected_status_sha256 or understand the verification context. Sufficient for a caller who already knows the values, but too thin for autonomous selection and invocation.

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%, so all 5 required parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The prose mentions 'Git status digest' (maps weakly to expected_status_sha256) and settled identity, but never clarifies what lease_id, controller_id, base_commit, or expected_head mean, nor that the expected_* fields are the values the caller asserts. At 0% coverage, the description must compensate and does not.

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 ('Return') and a precise resource ('exact settled writer identity, Git status digest, and content digest used to authorize a host verification'). This clearly distinguishes a snapshot/inspection tool from its siblings herdr_owned_worker_verify (performs verification) and herdr_owned_worker_verification_list (lists records). Slightly docked because it doesn't name the sibling it is not, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the inspection counterpart to herdr_owned_worker_verify and herdr_owned_worker_verification_list from the sibling list alone. No prerequisites (e.g., must a lease/verification already exist?) or routing conditions are stated.

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