vorion_log_proof

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the audit trail is immutable and hash-linked, and reveals that it returns a proof hash and chain length for verification. This goes beyond basic operation description, though it doesn't cover error cases or constraints.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose, then detailing the content and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

For a simple logging tool with fully described parameters and a clear return value, the description covers all necessary aspects. It explains both the operation and its output, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of the proof hash and chain length.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all four parameters. The description adds minimal extra semantic value by naming 'agent ID, action, and reasoning,' but does not deepen understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 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 the tool logs governance decisions to an immutable proof chain, specifies the decision types (ALLOW/DENY), and lists the recorded data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vorion_tenant_audit_tail or vorion_record_signal, though it could be more explicit about those distinctions.

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 clearly implies when to use it (whenever a governance decision is made) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. This is a clear context without exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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