verify_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format: 'Returns ALLOW, WARN or BLOCK with a risk score and findings.' This clarifies the output behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or permissions, but the verb 'verify' implies non-destructive assessment.

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 long, front-loads the core action, includes concrete examples, and avoids redundant details. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description adequately explains the return format (ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK with risk score and findings) and the input format. It does not cover edge cases or policy semantics, but for a straightforward verification tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. The artifact parameter is already described with an example in both schema and description; the policy parameter is described in schema but not addressed in the description. No additional semantic nuance is provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify a software artifact before installing, executing or depending on it.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a single artifact and providing package URL examples (pkg:npm/express@4.18.2, pkg:pypi/requests@2.32.3).

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Call this before suggesting an install command for any third party package.' This is a clear trigger condition, but it does not mention alternatives or when NOT to use the tool. Sibling tools like verify_artifacts or check_policy could be alternatives, yet they are not named.

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