recompute_merkle_root

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds the exact hashing algorithm, domain separation, the no-network guarantee, the returned fields, and the caveat that comparison is the caller's responsibility. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, algorithm, caller responsibility, and return shape are packed into a compact, front-loaded description with no filler.

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 two-parameter pure computation tool, the description fully covers the algorithm, parameter semantics, return object, and the expected post-call action. The missing output schema is mitigated by explicitly listing the returned fields.

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 operational meaning: leaf is hashed in the leaf domain, proof_path is replayed in order, and the side determines left/right ordering during internal-node hashing.

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?

States a specific action ('recompute') and resource ('dokimo-merkle-v1 root'), with the key distinguishing trait 'LOCAL, no network, no trust.' It also implicitly differentiates itself from verify_evidence_package by instructing the caller to do the comparison themselves.

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?

Provides clear usage context: recompute locally and compare the returned root to the root in an evidence package; a mismatch signals tampering. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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