mcp_engram_verify_block_lawfulness

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'Merkle chain state, allowed_transforms contract, CRS, and detected issues.' It also states it is local-only with no external servers required. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects, though the name 'verify' suggests non-destructive behavior.

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 front-loaded with a clear label and consists of two informative sentences plus a note. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, return content, and locality. No redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, return values, and constraints. It lacks details on output structure or examples, but for a verification tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing context for the 'concept' parameter, emphasizing high-value blocks like PRAXIS or GENESIS. It does not elaborate on 'check_merkle_chain' but the schema already includes a default and description.

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 audit tamper-evidence and contractual integrity of high-value memory blocks (especially PRAXIS or GENESIS). It uses specific verbs ('Audit', 'Returns') and distinguishes from sibling verification tools like 'mcp_engram_verify_behavior' and 'mcp_engram_verify_manifold_integrity' by focusing on block lawfulness.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this on cold boot after long sleep or before acting on critical operational protocols.' It also notes that verification is local-only, which guides the agent on when to invoke. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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