rohan_verify_commitment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cryptographic method (RFC 8785 JSON Canonicalization and SHA-256), zero gas cost, and local RAM execution, but it does not describe what happens on mismatch, whether the operation is read-only, or what the verification result looks like.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core verification purpose is front-loaded, followed by relevant execution characteristics.

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?

The description is adequate for a two-parameter verification tool with fully documented parameters, and it adds methodological context. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should do more to explain the return behavior, mismatch handling, and any preconditions for verification.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds useful context by naming the canonicalization and hashing method, but it does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('audits and verifies') and resource ('plaintext payload matches an on-chain commitment'), and it names the cryptographic mechanism used. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools rohan_zk_handshake and rohan_get_ledger_state.

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 that the tool is zero-gas and runs locally in RAM, which hints at when it may be preferable to an on-chain operation. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention the sibling tools or alternatives.

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