vorion_canary_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral consequences: results feed the tenant's behavioral baseline, repeated ambiguous outcomes can trigger AUDITED state, and it returns a proofHash for chain verification. This goes beyond basic write semantics, though it omits permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value: definition, consequences, and return value. No redundant wording.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (including a nested evidence object) and no output schema, but the description covers the core purpose, outcome semantics, side effects, and return value. It could mention error conditions or the evidence parameter, but the schema already describes fields. Overall, sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that pass/fail/ambiguous outcomes feed the baseline and can trigger AUDITED state, giving semantic weight to the outcome enum. It also ties probeId to the canary probe concept.

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 ('Submit a canary probe result') and the specific resource ('Cognigate Runtime'). It explains what canary probes are and how results are classified, distinguishing this from sibling tools like vorion_record_signal or vorion_log_proof. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool: when submitting canary probe results after running adversarial/behavioral tests. It explains the outcome classifications and their consequences. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it over siblings.

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