check_seal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It partially succeeds by stating the return behavior: 'Returns matched=false with the two digests if they diverge.' This gives insight into the tool's output and failure mode. It does not state whether the tool has side effects, but 'check' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the core verification behavior is transparent enough.

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 concise and front-loaded, with three short sentences that each add value: what the tool does, what it detects, and what it returns. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with nested objects, the description is minimally viable: it clearly states the purpose and the divergent return case. However, it omits parameter semantics, the matched=true return case, and does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently decide between passing a seal object vs a seal_path. It is acceptable but has clear gaps.

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 for the schema's lack of explanations. It mentions 'acceptance specification' and 'seal' generally, but does not clarify the roles of the three parameters (seal, spec, seal_path), which are required vs optional, or how seal_path relates to the seal object. The parameter semantics are severely under-specified.

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+resource construction ('Check that an acceptance specification still matches its seal') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like seal_criteria and verify_certificate by focusing on detecting post-sealing changes. It also names the concrete detection scope ('criteria that were changed after sealing'), so there is no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 usage context is implied through 'Detects criteria that were changed after sealing,' suggesting this is for verifying that a spec has not been modified since it was sealed. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no alternatives are named among the sibling tools.

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