Single-Use Agent Burn Receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one conditional outcome ('signed receipt only when every shard is accounted') but omits destructive or irreversible effects, credential/auth requirements, side effects on child receipts, and failure 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 short and front-loaded, but it is cryptic and under-specified rather than concise. Terms like 'shard' and 'accounted' are unexplained, so brevity costs 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 likely destructive agent-burning operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out side effects, auth requirements, return format beyond a conditional receipt, and parameter meanings. It is not complete enough to call safely.

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 neither parameter is described in the schema. The description never mentions 'credential' and does not explicitly map 'child_receipts' to 'every shard accounted,' leaving an agent with no guidance on what values to supply.

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 names an action ('Burn') and an object ('an agent'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, 'burn' is undefined in this context and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as burn_run, burn_verify, or burn_spawn.

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?

It gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives despite six sibling tools. The receipt condition is a behavioral precondition, not routing guidance.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a gating operation requiring a verifying receipt, but it does not explain rejection behavior, side effects, permissions, or what happens on success.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves little structure for understanding the gate's conditions in detail.

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 tool has three parameters including nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should do more to explain inputs and expected behavior. It states the core gating concept but omits enough detail that an agent would struggle to invoke it 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 undocumented parameters. It vaguely maps to 'receipt' and 'deliverable', but does not explain the receipt object shape, deliverable_hash, or task_spec, leaving most parameter semantics unclear.

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 gives a recognizable verb and resource: accepting a deliverable via a gate, conditional on a verifying receipt. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings such as burn_verify.

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 phrase 'only with a verifying receipt' implies the required condition for use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over burn_verify or other siblings. Usage is therefore inferable but not fully specified.

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 carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses canary shards, per-cycle pricing, and a first-free condition, but omits permissions, lifecycle behavior, and side effects of minting an agent.

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 front-loaded, tightly written, and contains no filler. Each clause adds a distinct fact about the operation, cost, or free-use condition.

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 a nested required object, three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It lacks required task_spec structure, tool-grant behavior, TTL semantics, and return-value expectations.

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 does little to compensate. 'Task-bound' weakly implies task_spec, but tool_grants and ttl_seconds receive no semantic explanation in either schema or 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 states a specific verb ('Mint') and resource ('task-bound disposable agent'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as burn_spawn, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives cost and first-free context but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like burn_spawn or burn_run. There are no explicit exclusions or routing guidance.

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 the full behavioral-disclosure burden. 'A match revokes standing' hints at a consequential state change, but it omits permissions required, whether revocation is automatic or destructive, what happens when there is no match, and what the tool returns.

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 definition is a single compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. Its brevity is structurally appropriate even though the content is under-specified.

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 two required parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves major invocation context missing: receipt semantics, match versus no-match behavior, and expected return behavior. It is not complete enough to call the tool confidently.

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 schema includes a nested 'receipt' object, so the description needs to compensate but does not. It only alludes to an 'artifact' parameter and never explains 'receipt', its structure, or the artifact string 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?

It names a concrete action ('Scan') and a target ('artifact'), but 'resurfaced shards' and 'revokes standing' are opaque domain jargon. The description does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings such as burn_verify or burn_gate.

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 gives no indication of when this scan should be used instead of alternatives like burn_verify or burn_gate, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'scan'.

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 the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, whether the 'burn' is irreversible, how secret_input is handled, or what is returned. 'Run the bound task' implies execution but says nothing about consequence or permissions.

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?

A single short sentence, so there is no waste and the key concept is front-loaded. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: nothing essential is explained in the space saved.

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 a free-form nested object parameter, an unmentioned secret_input, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition leaves an agent guessing about call shape and outcome. The only real aid is the hint that the credential comes from minting.

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 nested task_spec object has no defined shape. The description only maps 'credential' to 'minted credential' and leaves task_spec unexplained and secret_input entirely unmentioned, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 verb (run) and an object (the bound task) and hints at the minting prerequisite via 'minted credential', which loosely separates it from burn_mint. But 'bound task' and 'burn_run' are undefined jargon, so an agent cannot tell precisely what execution means here versus burn_spawn or burn_burn.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternatives among burn_mint, burn_verify, burn_gate, or burn_spawn. The only implicit routing is 'minted credential', which an agent must infer implies running burn_mint first.

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 carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that a shard custody transfer occurs, but says nothing about permissions implied by the credential parameter, what happens to the child or shard afterward, whether the operation is reversible, or what is returned.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 a credential parameter, a nested required object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to invoke it correctly or predict its effects.

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 does not explain either required parameter. It never clarifies what the credential represents or what fields child_task_spec must contain, despite the nested object structure.

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 names a specific verb ("spawn") and resource ("child"), and hints at a side effect ("custody of one spawn-grant shard transfers"). However, "child" and "spawn-grant shard" are undefined jargon, so an agent cannot tell what is actually being created or how this differs meaningfully from siblings like burn_run or burn_mint.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus burn_run, burn_mint, or burn_gate, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The implied usage is "when you want to spawn a child," which is circular given the undefined term.

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 the full disclosure burden. It hints that verification is against a registry, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, whether verification is read-only, or what a successful/failed result looks like.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste, but the terseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than deliberate brevity – there is essentially nothing front-loaded beyond the basic act.

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 three parameters with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot know what to pass in task_spec or deliverable_hash, nor what the tool returns, making correct invocation mostly guesswork.

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% for three parameters, including two nested objects (receipt, task_spec). The description references only the receipt in passing and adds no meaning about task_spec (presumably a cross-check) or deliverable_hash (presumably the expected hash), so it fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (burn receipt) plus a mechanism (the persistent registry), which distinguishes it from siblings like burn_mint and burn_run. However, 'verify' is ambiguous – it doesn't say whether it checks authenticity, existence, signature, or hash match, so the agent cannot reason precisely about what the operation confirms.

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 indication of when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as burn_gate or burn_mint, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a burn must exist first). The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.

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