witness_get_blind

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns status and commitment hashes, and includes a behavioral note about self-asserted identities. It does not explicitly state idempotency or side effects, but the read-only nature is implied. The transparency is good but could mention error handling or behavior before any submission.

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 three well-structured sentences: purpose, return values, and a key limitation. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality, return values, and a behavioral limitation. It references the paired sibling tool. It does not describe error cases or behavior when called before any commitment exists, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It does not individually describe the 'conclusion_key' parameter, its format, or constraints. The parameter's meaning is only implied through the tool's context. This is insufficient for an agent to understand exactly what value to provide, especially without schema documentation.

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 explicitly states 'Check the status of a blind conclusion exchange' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'Pair to `witness_submit_blind`' and details what it returns: whether both parties submitted and commitment hashes. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 clear context by stating it pairs with `witness_submit_blind`, indicating an intended usage sequence. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the pairing hint and explanation of return values effectively guide appropriate usage. No exclusion criteria are needed for such a focused tool.

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