Verify SLSA provenance

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds that it shells out to an external binary and may fetch metadata, and that it returns EP_EXTERNAL_TOOL if the binary is missing. This adds relevant behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a brief summary, a clear note about external dependencies, and a concise Args section. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 tool has an output schema, which reduces the need to explain return values. The description covers prerequisites (binary on PATH) and error behavior, which is sufficient for a verification tool. It could mention the result format, but given the output schema exists, the completeness is adequate.

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%, and the description provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, just restating the relevant arguments. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool verifies an artifact's SLSA provenance using slsa-verifier, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like verify_cosign_signature by specifying SLSA, but does not explicitly contrast with it.

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 indicates that the tool requires a locally installed slsa-verifier binary on PATH and that it may fetch metadata, but does not explicitly say when to use it over other verification tools like verify_cosign_signature or verify_seal.

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