Generates a structured decision report for a DPU. Returns a formatted document with decision details, hash chain verification, and download links (PDF, JSON-LD). Use this after proof_record to provide a downloadable evidence report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The DPU ID to generate a report for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal return format, document contents, hash chain verification, and download links. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or persists anything, nor how it behaves for missing/invalid DPU IDs.
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 front-load the tool's purpose and add a practical workflow directive. There is no filler or redundant explanation; every sentence 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?
Given the low complexity—one parameter, no output schema—the description adequately covers what the tool returns, what the document contains, what download formats are available, and when it should be used. Missing error/auth details are not critical for this simple report generator.
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% for the single id parameter, which already describes it as 'The DPU ID to generate a report for.' The tool description does not add meaningful parameter guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('DPU'), then enumerates concrete output contents: decision details, hash chain verification, and PDF/JSON-LD download links. It distinguishes itself from sibling verification/export tools by positioning itself as the post-proof_record evidence report.
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 when to use it: 'Use this after proof_record to provide a downloadable evidence report.' This gives clear sequential context, though it does not name alternatives or exclusion cases compared to siblings like proof_export_jsonld or proof_verify.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct (record, get, export, report, chain verify), but proof_verify and proof_public_verify both verify cryptographic integrity with overlapping semantics. The descriptions clarify the auth and chain-link differences, but an agent could still confuse them.
All tools follow a strict 'proof_' prefix with a verb action (get, record, verify, export, report, chain_verify, public_verify). The pattern is consistent, snake_case throughout, and predictable.
With 7 tools covering proof recording, retrieval, verification, export, and reporting, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. No redundancy or bloat, and each tool serves a clear function.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of proof management: record (create), get (read), verify (check integrity), export (format), and report (human-readable output). A list operation is missing, but it's not critical for the domain's core workflows.
