ProofX - Content Protection for Creators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: it computes a hash locally, uses SHA-256, and works on text content. It does not contradict annotations. The only gap is that it doesn't mention what the output format is (e.g., hex string), though this is often assumed for hashes.

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 short sentences: the first defines what it does, the second provides usage context. No wasted words, and both are essential. Front-loaded with the action.

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 simple, single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the main behavioral aspects. It lacks mention of output format or encoding, but this is minor given the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'text' as 'The text content to hash'. The description adds 'locally' and 'SHA-256' context but not parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('SHA-256 hash of text content'), and adds the clarifying purpose ('creating a fingerprint of content for verification purposes'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'verify_content' and 'verify_hash', which operate on the output of this tool rather than computing it.

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 states it is 'useful for creating a fingerprint of content for verification purposes,' which clearly indicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., 'verify_hash' for comparison). Still, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate use.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the tool returns identity, certificate details, and content count, which is useful but not extensive. It does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if creator_id is invalid) or any additional constraints.

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 that immediately states the action and the scope. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key return areas (identity, certificate details, content count). Annotations cover behavioral traits. For a simple lookup tool with one parameter, this is largely complete, though it could mention error handling for missing creators.

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% (single creator_id parameter with description). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself—it focuses on the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('ProofX creator's profile') and lists the specific details returned (identity, certificate details, content count). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like protect_content or verify_content which serve 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that my_account might be more appropriate for querying the current user's own profile, or that this tool is the way to get certificate details. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important 'requires authentication' constraint and explains the return fields (creator ID, plan, content count), providing useful context beyond the 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists key output fields, then adds the authentication requirement. 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description effectively explains what the tool does and what it returns. For a simple account info display tool, this is sufficient, though an example return format would further 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 has no parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying what account information is returned (creator ID, plan, content count), adding semantic value by telling the agent what to expect.

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 'Show' and the specific resource 'current user's ProofX account information', listing concrete fields like creator ID, plan, and content count. It completely distinguishes this from sibling tools which are about creators, content protection, verification, or hashing.

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 mentions 'requires authentication' which implies the tool is only for authenticated users, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs siblings (e.g., when to use get_creator instead). No guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is 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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds process detail (hash computed and registered server-side), but does not clarify the nature of the destructive behavior (e.g., whether repeated calls overwrite protections) or disclose return values. Given annotation coverage, the description provides adequate but not exceptional behavioral context.

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 compact two sentences: the first states the core action, the second elaborates on the process and usage context. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and destructive behavior, the description covers purpose and usage but omits what the tool returns (e.g., a registration ID) and the consequences of repeated calls. Given the sibling tools for verification, a hint on 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-documented (e.g., creator_id explains where to get one, title has default). The tool description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond listing content types, which reinforces content_text but does not enhance semantic understanding 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 action: 'Register and protect text content with ProofX cryptographic signatures.' It includes specific examples of content types (article, poem, script, code) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_hash and verify_content by focusing on registration and protection.

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 tells when to use: 'Use this when a user wants to protect their text, article, poem, script, code, or other content they created.' It provides clear context but stops short of naming alternative tools or specifying when not to use it, which would elevate it to a 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return fields but does not explain error behavior (e.g., missing content ID) or other behavioral nuances. Adds some value beyond annotations but not substantial.

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, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant words. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description covers the purpose and return fields. However, without an output schema, it could detail the return structure (e.g., data types, optionality). Slightly incomplete but not deficient.

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 already describes content_id as an 8-character hex string. The description merely says 'by its content ID', adding no new semantics. 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 verb ('check if...protected') and the resource ('digital content with ProofX by its content ID'), and enumerates the specific return fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'protect_content' and 'verify_hash'.

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 such as 'verify_hash' or 'protect_content'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool checks against ProofX and does not upload content, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe the return value or what happens if the hash is not found, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. The added value is moderate.

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 composed of three concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second adds key context (no upload, ProofX), and the third gives a usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, key behavioral trait (no upload), and a prerequisite (compute hash first). It does not specify the output format or possible return values, which would be a minor improvement. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand and invoke 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 coverage is 100% and the schema description of the 'hash' parameter already specifies it as a 64-character hex string. The description merely reiterates that the hash is the input and that the user should compute it, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and no additional value is provided.

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 'verify', the resource 'content authenticity', and the method 'by its SHA-256 hash' against the ProofX system. It also specifies that no upload occurs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'protect_content' and 'verify_content' that may involve uploading. The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context: 'Check if a file or text has been registered with ProofX without uploading it' indicates when to use this tool (for registration check without upload). It also instructs the user to compute the SHA-256 hash first, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though the sibling tool 'compute_hash' is implied. The guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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