frank_verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the anchor_status values (anchored, unanchored, untrusted, unreadable) and what each means, including that only 'anchored' means the head was actually compared. It also notes the tool may take a moment on a long ledger, which is useful for the agent. The description does not contradict annotations, and it adds context beyond what annotations provide, though it could mention the exact return format.

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 detailed but well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded and the anchor check explained in a separate paragraph. It is longer than necessary but each sentence adds value, explaining the anchor mechanism and its statuses. The structure is logical, moving from the main function to the edge case and then to usage guidance.

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 complexity (chain verification with anchor comparison), the description is quite complete. It explains the anchor_status cases, the CLI-only anchor creation, and the read-only nature. However, it does not describe the return format or the exact structure of the verification verdict, which could be useful. The parameter app_id is also unexplained, which is a minor gap. Overall, it covers most of what an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. However, the description does not explain what app_id is or how it affects the verification. The parameter is required, but its semantics are unclear. The description focuses on the tool's behavior rather than the parameter, leaving the agent to guess what app_id refers to. This is a gap, but the tool's purpose is clear enough that the parameter might be self-explanatory in context.

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 re-hashes the entire FRANK governance chain and verifies every prev_hash → hash link, detecting tampering, edits, or gaps. It also explains the additional anchor check, which distinguishes it from a simple chain verification. The verb 'verify' and resource 'FRANK governance chain' are specific, and the description differentiates it from siblings like frank_read and frank_append.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (to verify chain integrity) and when not to (it's read-only, and the anchor creation is CLI-only, not an MCP tool). It also mentions the alternative for creating/refreshing anchors: 'willow-mcp frank-anchor'. This provides clear context and exclusions, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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