agent_key_verify

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens on success/failure, or if it modifies any state. The mention of 'potential MitM attacks' adds some context but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the core action and purpose.

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 security-sensitive tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, required preconditions (e.g., key must have been pinned), or behavior in edge cases (e.g., no pinned key found).

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Your agent API key' and 'Agent DID to verify keys for'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'agent's current public keys against your pinned copy'. It also explains the purpose: detects key rotation or potential MitM attacks. This distinguishes it from siblings like agent_key_pin (pinning) and agent_verify_message (message verification).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_key_pin, agent_key_pins, or agent_verify_message. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., prior pinning needed) or when not to use it.

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