verify_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful fact that it validates checksums rather than content, but says nothing about what happens on a mismatch (error vs. per-artifact reporting) or how results are returned.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope caveat immediately following. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition is close to sufficient. It is still thin on result behavior — mismatch reporting and failure modes — which matters for a verification tool whose whole point is returning a verdict.

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% and the single parameter run_id is never mentioned in the description. While run_id is largely self-explanatory by name, the description adds no meaning about whether it refers to a run in the catalog, what happens if no artifacts were saved, or the required identifier format.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Verify saved artifact checksums') and adds a scope clause distinguishing integrity checking from scientific-correctness checking, which separates it from siblings like check_data_quality. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'this checks integrity, not scientific correctness' functions as a clear when-not cue, telling an agent to route correctness questions elsewhere. It gives no named alternative and no prerequisites (e.g. that the run must already have saved artifacts).

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