wwa_identity_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Proves that an agent with a given public key signed a specific message' and mentions the protocol version, giving meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose return values or error handling for invalid signatures, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action ('Verify an agent's Ed25519 cryptographic signature'). Each sentence contributes distinct information: the action, the proof semantics, and usage contexts with protocol version. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 description provides purpose, usage contexts, and protocol implementation, and the schema covers all parameters. Given the simplicity of the tool (cryptographic verification), the missing return value description is a minor gap. With no output schema, stating whether it returns a boolean or a detailed result would improve completeness, but the description is otherwise adequate.

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 input schema includes descriptions for all five parameters, and the tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the schema itself adequately documents the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and a clear resource ('an agent's Ed25519 cryptographic signature'), immediately stating what the tool does. It also differentiates from sibling tools by naming concrete use cases (subagent output verification, capability attestation, agent-to-agent authentication) and the protocol version, making its role distinct.

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 usage context by listing three specific scenarios where the tool should be used: subagent output verification, capability attestation, and agent-to-agent authentication. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to determine when to invoke this tool versus others.

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