herdr_owned_worker_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so richly: commands are 'fixed, controller-fenced, digest-pinned, time-bounded, and recorded'. It also specifies exactly what bootstrap inputs are allowed, which tells the agent about validation and rejection behavior. This goes well beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 only two sentences, with the core action and resource front-loaded, and every phrase contributes meaning. The dense, technical language is not padding; it conveys fixed commands, fencing, digest pinning, time bounds, recording, and bootstrap constraints economically.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too high-level to let an agent construct a correct call. It never explains what 'expected_status_sha256' and 'expected_worktree_sha256' represent, how timeout_seconds is applied, what 'settled leased writer' means, or what the verification result looks like. The behavioral summary is strong but operational detail is missing.

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 the description must compensate, but it only adds meaning for the bootstrap-related parameters ('npm ci' or hash-pinned requirements.lock manifests). The many required parameters — controller_id, controller_lease_id, controller_fence_token, lease_id, expected_head, expected_status_sha256, expected_worktree_sha256 — are not explained or mapped to the behavioral concepts like 'controller-fenced' or 'digest-pinned'.

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 opens with a specific action verb, 'Run', on a clear resource: 'the repository-selected verification gate' for 'one settled leased writer'. It also describes scope ('on the host') and contrasts clearly with sibling tools like verification_list and verification_snapshot, which are list/snapshot operations, not execution.

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 tells the agent this is for running verification on a settled leased writer and imposes strict constraints on dependency bootstraps, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly says when not to use this tool or points to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage from the context.

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