Verify Audit Trail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it verifies hash-chain integrity, checks HMAC signatures if configured, and lists return values (chain validity, entry count, current hash, hmac info, errors). This goes beyond annotations and fully informs the agent.

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 three focused sentences: core action, conditional behavior, and return values. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 the single parameter with full schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's action, conditions, and return details comprehensively. The agent has all needed context to call and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% with a single well-described parameter ('spec_dir'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states that the tool verifies hash-chain integrity of the Specky audit log, with additional HMAC verification when configured. This uniquely identifies its purpose among siblings, as no other sibling tool performs audit verification.

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 provides clear context on when to use: to verify audit trail integrity. It explains conditional behavior (HMAC key). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state prerequisites, leaving some implicit understanding.

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