mcp_engram_verify_behavior

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: on success, block promoted to Praxis; on failure, CRS penalized and eventual automatic scarring. This provides complete transparency about side effects.

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 informative but somewhat verbose. It is structured with clear sections (trigger, outcomes, examples), but could be slightly more concise while retaining all essential information.

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 simple input schema (2 params, no output schema), the description is very complete. It explains the tool's role within the engram system, consequences of both outcomes, and provides practical examples, leaving no gaps.

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?

Both parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by linking 'concept' to a specific ZEDOS_HYPOTHESIS block and tying 'success' to empirical data, enhancing schema information.

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's purpose: to report empirical success/failure data against a ZEDOS_HYPOTHESIS block. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mcp_engram_scar.

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 explicitly says when to call (after hypothesis confirmed or fails) and provides examples. It also suggests an alternative (mcp_engram_scar) for failure cases, offering clear usage guidance.

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