evidence_verify_integrity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool recomputes hashes and compares them, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or output details. With an output schema present, the lack of return value description is acceptable, but a bit more detail on behavior (e.g., what happens if mismatch found) would improve scoring.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action, and the second provides context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, output schema present), the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It does not mention what happens if verification fails, but this is a minor gap. The context provided by sibling tools reinforces its place in an investigation workflow.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the schema trivially covers them. The description adds no parameter semantics, but this is acceptable since no parameters exist. Baseline score of 4 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 a specific action: 'Recompute every evidence hash and compare to the value recorded at case_open.' It uses a specific verb (recompute) and resource (evidence hash), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on integrity verification, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 for when to use: 'Run at the end of an investigation to prove the originals were never modified.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but given the tool's simplicity and specific use case, this is sufficient.

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