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

With no annotations provided, the description only indicates that it generates and auto-loads an artifact. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, requires authorization, or has side effects beyond loading into the portal.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the core action and provides an important side effect (auto-loading) without unnecessary words.

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 has 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, the format of the sealed artifact, or how parameters like evidence_items and behavioral_baseline contribute to the attestation.

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 description does not mention any parameters, despite schema description coverage being only 25%. It fails to explain the purpose or usage of subject_content, subject_metadata, evidence_items, or behavioral_baseline, leaving a significant gap.

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 that the tool attests a subject and generates a sealed Policy Artifact, with auto-loading into a portal. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like generate_evidence_bundle or request_claim, which could have overlapping purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of non-expanding scope, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error behavior.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure or context.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on return values, prerequisites, or how this fits with siblings, leaving an agent with insufficient information for correct 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% and each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the general purpose of constrained delegation, so 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 derives a constrained policy artifact for a sub-agent, with specific scope restrictions. It uses domain-specific terminology (NCCoE constrained delegation) but is not contrasted with siblings like request_claim or attest_subject.

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 constraints 'Scope can only diminish, never expand' provide some usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the output components (receipts, proofs, checkpoint) and purpose (offline verification). However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication, or whether it is read-only (likely safe).

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the main action. It contains no fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list) for clarity.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview of what the bundle contains and how it is used. Minor gaps: no mention of prerequisites (like needing a chain) or the bundle's size/format.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool outputs and its purpose, which is more than the schema provides. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 'Export' and the resource 'canonical SEP evidence bundle', detailing its content (signed receipts, Merkle proofs, signed checkpoint). It distinguishes from the sibling 'verify_bundle_offline' by specifying this is for generation.

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?

Explicitly states the use case: 'for offline third-party verification'. Mentions verification methods (verify_bundle_offline, etc.) and a key prerequisite (pin gateway_public_key). Does not include when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond verify_bundle_offline.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or any constraints beyond the name.

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?

At only four words, the description is underspecified rather than concisely informative. It fails to provide necessary details that would make it useful.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves the agent with minimal understanding of tool behavior, inputs, or outputs. It is insufficient for the given complexity.

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?

Input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning, format, or use of 'start_seq' and 'end_seq'. The agent remains uninformed about these 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?

Description states it retrieves 'continuity chain events', identifying a specific resource and action. However, it lacks clarity on what these events represent, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_portal_state' or 'get_server_info'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about scenarios or prerequisites for invoking it.

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

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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It only names what is retrieved, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain return structure. It names major components but lacks detail on format or fields. Given low complexity (no params, no annotations), it is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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?

No parameters in schema, so baseline is 4. Description adds meaning by specifying what the tool returns, going beyond the empty schema.

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?

Description clearly states what is retrieved: 'current portal state, loaded artifact info, and enforcement status'. Verb and resource are specific and distinct from siblings like get_server_info or get_chain_events.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_server_info). No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Get' implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements. It does not disclose behavior for missing artifact_hash or large result sets.

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 a single sentence, concise but lacks structure. It could be improved by separating purpose and usage details. It earns its place but does not excel in providing organized information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return format, pagination, error handling, and behavior for missing parameters. For a tool with one optional param, it is borderline but still leaves significant questions.

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%, and the description adds minimal meaning: 'optionally filtered by artifact' links the parameter artifact_hash to filtering but does not explain the format or valid values. This is insufficient for a parameter with no schema description.

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 retrieves all signed receipts with optional filtering by artifact. The verb 'Get' and resource 'signed receipts' are specific. Sibling tools like list_claims or get_chain_events are distinct, so no confusion arises.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this tool is preferred over list_claims for certain cases.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is safe, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a read-only tool, minimal behavioral disclosure is given.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise with no waste. Every word adds value.

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?

Although the description mentions the types of information retrieved (server info, public keys, portal state), it does not describe the output structure or format. With no output schema, the description should provide more detail on what the response contains.

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 tool has no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 retrieves AGA server info, public keys, and portal state. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_portal_state, which is more specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like get_portal_state and other info tools, the description should include context on when to prefer this over others.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'initialize' and 'genesis event', but does not mention side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or required permissions. Falls short for a mutating operation.

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?

Extremely concise at 5 words, but at the expense of critical information. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place as it omits parameter details and 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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the parameter's meaning, return value, and overall behavior, making it insufficient for correct 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?

The single parameter 'specification_hash' has no description in the schema and is not mentioned in the description. The agent has no way to understand its purpose or format.

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 'Initialize' and the resource 'continuity chain' with 'genesis event', which differentiates it from sibling tools like verify_chain. However, the term 'continuity chain' is not explained, assuming domain knowledge.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_chain_events or verify_chain. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool lists claims with sensitivity levels, but does not disclose side effects (likely none), authorization needs, or data freshness. For a tool with no parameters, the behavior is simple, but more transparency could help.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential information without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place with precise 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?

Given no parameters or output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple list operation. It tells the agent what the tool provides (claims with sensitivity levels). However, it could mention if the list is complete or filtered in any way, but overall it is adequately complete for its simplicity.

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 has 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter information, but since none exist, this is appropriate. The baseline is 4 for no 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 clearly states the tool's function: listing available claims with sensitivity levels. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('claims'), and adds detail about sensitivity levels, distinguishing it from siblings like 'request_claim' or 'verify_bundle_offline' which have different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain how 'list_claims' differs from 'get_receipts' or other listing operations. No context about prerequisites or ideal scenarios is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the detective-only default, that it records and proves drift but does not block, and that enforce=true triggers phantom quarantine. It could elaborate on what 'phantom quarantine' entails, but it's sufficiently transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by details on default behavior and enforce option. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and the enforce option. It does not describe the output or what triggers measurement, but it is fairly complete given the context. A brief mention of output would improve completeness.

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 provides only the parameter name and type with 0% coverage. The description adds valuable meaning: it explains that enforce (boolean, default false) opts in to phantom quarantine on drift. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 measures behavioral patterns (unauthorized tools, rate violations, forbidden sequences) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting 'DETECTIVE-ONLY' default behavior and an optional enforce parameter for quarantine.

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 explains when to use the tool (for detecting behavioral drift) and how to opt into enforcement via enforce=true. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings like measure_integrity, but the context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions receipt generation but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on mismatch. The comparison to a sealed reference is implied but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having two parameters (one nested) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits the source of the sealed reference, return format, and any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to successfully invoke the tool.

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?

Only 50% of parameters have schema descriptions; the description adds no parameter-level details. Subject_content is described in schema; subject_metadata lacks description in both schema and tool description. The description does not clarify their roles beyond the schema.

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's purpose: measuring subject state and comparing to a sealed reference, and generating signed receipts. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'attest_subject' and 'measure_behavior'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states the function without contextual usage advice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Auto-substitutes if denied', which is a key behavior, but fails to explain what 'substitutes' means, whether it's destructive, or any other side effects. No mention of permissions or rate limits.

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 very concise (two sentences), but it lacks structure and essential information. While it is not verbose, the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every sentence should earn its place, but here they are insufficient.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the meaning of disclosure modes, or the auto-substitution behavior in detail. The tool is for a potentially complex operation, but the description leaves many gaps.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. It doesn't mention claim_id, mode, or requester_id. The mode enum (PROOF_ONLY, REVEAL_MIN, REVEAL_FULL) is not described. The description fails entirely to add meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Request disclosure of a claim.' The verb 'request disclosure' and resource 'claim' are specific. It also mentions auto-substitution on denial, adding context. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_claims', but the purpose is distinct enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The tool is for requesting claim disclosure, but no context on when to choose this over other claim-related tools.

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

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

Without annotations, the description partially carries the burden. It discloses the termination effect on next measurement, but does not detail permissions, side effects on other artifacts, or confirmation mechanics. It adds value but leaves gaps.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Every word contributes to understanding purpose and key behavior. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 is minimal but covers the primary action and a notable behavioral effect. However, given no output schema and potential complexity around revocation, more detail (e.g., what happens to the session, how to confirm success) would improve completeness.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('sealed_hash', 'reason'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 specifies the action 'Revoke' on the resource 'active policy artifact', adds context 'mid-session', and notes a specific effect 'Portal terminates on next measurement'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'attest_subject' or 'delegate_to_subagent'.

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 context ('mid-session') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use, or which sibling to choose instead). It lacks exclusion criteria or comparative hints.

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

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

No annotations provided, but the description details the verification algorithm: structural floor, receipt signatures, chain+ordering, leaf-recompute + Merkle bijection, signed checkpoint. This fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences: first describes purpose and algorithm, second adds optional parameter. No unnecessary words.

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 covers the algorithm well and parameter use, but lacks output specification (return value) and prerequisites. For a complex verification tool, this is a notable gap.

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 has zero description coverage. The description explains pinned_public_key for provenance but does not elaborate on the bundle parameter's structure or constraints, leaving a gap.

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 verifies a canonical SEP evidence bundle offline, listing specific algorithm steps from §6. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_chain by focusing on bundle verification.

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 implies use when offline bundle verification is needed and mentions optional provenance via pinned_public_key. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but context with siblings is implicit.

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

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool performs a read or mutation, what it returns, or any side effects, leaving the agent with no insight into the tool's behavior.

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 very concise (one sentence). However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity; it could provide more detail without being verbose. It is not tautological but minimally sufficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description still fails to explain what 'verify' entails, what the output indicates, or how it relates to sibling tools like verify_bundle_offline. It is incomplete.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but baseline for zero parameters is 4. No further meaning is needed.

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 resource 'continuity chain integrity', making the general purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like verify_bundle_offline or get_chain_events, which limits clarity in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, intended use cases, or when to avoid it.

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