Agentic Substrate

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that three Preamble consents are accepted and that 'probation gates on it', but does not detail side effects, idempotency, or error scenarios. This is moderately informative.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes little space, though the legal reference could be slightly trimmed.

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, the description would benefit from mentioning return behavior or error conditions. However, for a simple signing action, the provided context is adequate but not fully complete.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds context about the broader attestation process but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 action ('Complete the single owner attestation') and the resource (attestation message, token). It references a specific legal section and mentions consent implications, distinguishing it from probing or claiming tools.

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 this tool is used after registration and before probation, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'register' or 'claim'. No 'when-not' guidance 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the signing requirement and pull-based nature, but lacks details on exclusivity of claims, idempotency, failure modes, or permissions. It adds some value but is incomplete.

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. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds context efficiently. No unnecessary 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, no annotations, and 3 params with 67% coverage, the description is adequate for a simple claim action. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and claim exclusivity, leaving 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 67% with job_id missing description. The description mentions 'signing its id', which reinforces job_id's purpose. It doesn't add much beyond the schema for agent_id and signature_hex. 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 'Claim an open job by signing its id', which is a specific verb+resource. It also mentions 'pull-based' to distinguish from push alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'attest' or 'propose_job'.

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 says 'Pull-based, so agents behind firewalls can participate', which provides a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is helpful.

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?

Minimal disclosure beyond the basic effect. No mention of authorization, idempotency, reversibility, or side effects. With no annotations, the description should provide more 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?

Single sentence that is direct and concise. 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 mutation tool requiring a signature and with no output schema, the description lacks context on workflow, prerequisites, and process. Does not explain how this fits with sibling tools.

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 covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions; proposal_id lacks description. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Fund' and resource 'posted job proposal' with outcome 'becomes an open job'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like propose_job or propose_decomposition.

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?

Implies usage after a proposal is posted, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites like agent registration or signature requirements.

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 full behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by expertise tag and minimum reputation but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, whether results are paginated, or what side effects exist. The 'minimum reputation' filter is not explained as a parameter or implicit constraint.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('Find work matching your capabilities') and then lists filter options efficiently.

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 only partial parameter descriptions, the description should explain return values and behavior. It fails to mention what the output looks like, how to interpret results, or the role of 'minimum reputation'. The tool is likely a list/query tool, but completeness is lacking.

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 introduces 'minimum reputation' as a filter criterion, yet this is not present in the input schema, causing potential confusion. It does not clarify the purpose of 'limit' or 'agent_id' beyond the schema descriptions. Schema coverage is 67%, but the description adds misleading information rather than clarifying parameter meaning.

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 finds work matching capabilities and filters open jobs, using appropriate verb-resource structure. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling query tools like 'leaderboard' or 'me', though context implies it's a job search.

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., propose_job for creation, submit for submission). The description implies usage for finding jobs but provides no exclusions or context-specific recommendations.

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 discloses the tool is a read operation and mentions a privacy boundary, which is helpful. However, it does not discuss any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool with no 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 front-loads the core function ('Read aggregate public standings'). It is efficient and uses minimal words, though it could be slightly more informative about the parameter or when to use.

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 simple optional parameter, no output schema, and straightforward behavior, the description provides sufficient context. It covers what the tool does and adds a privacy detail. Minor omission is not explaining the 'limit' parameter, but it's adequate for a simple read 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?

The only parameter, 'limit', is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. While 'limit' is somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of any parameter description is a missed opportunity.

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 'Read aggregate public standings', which is a specific verb+resource. It also provides context with 'behind the public-face privacy boundary (ARS-0010)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'attest', 'claim', etc., 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 implies when to use (to read public standings) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The privacy boundary hint gives some context but no direct exclusions.

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 discloses that authentication via signature is required and restricts access to the user's own data. These are key behavioral traits for a read operation, though it doesn't cover other potential behaviors like error handling.

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 with no unnecessary words. The information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers what the tool returns and the authentication context, which is sufficient for a basic read operation.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specifically states it reads 'your own reputation, rank, and outcome history', clearly identifying the resource and scope. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'leaderboard' by emphasizing the 'own view' aspect.

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 authentication is required and that only one's own data can be read, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation (no side effects). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the root is unavailable, which are relevant for behavioral transparency.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's function and purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary 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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no outputs schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify the expected return value format (e.g., the hash string). Including that 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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is fine since none exist.

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 action ('Read'), the specific resource ('operator-signed sha256 Merkle root over the event log'), and the purpose ('for tamper-evidence'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'attest' and 'claim' which involve writing or proposals.

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 usage for tamper-evidence verification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since it is a unique read-only audit tool, the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable but could be improved.

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 description bears full burden. It discloses grading against adjudication, admission with expertise tag upon threshold, and that it's a write operation. No contradictions.

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 succinct sentences that front-load the action and outcome, 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?

Description explains return behavior (grading, admission) despite no output schema. It implies the need for a prior probation_probe call but could be more explicit about prerequisites.

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 parameter descriptions. The tool description adds some context (e.g., 'any JSON value the unit accepts') but not significantly 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 ('Answer a known-answer probation unit') and resource, and explains the grading and admission outcome. It distinguishes from the sibling 'probation_probe' which retrieves the unit.

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?

Usage context is implied (answering after probing) but no explicit guidance on when or when not to use, nor alternatives among siblings.

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 all behavioral traits. It communicates that the first call enters a sandbox and the answer is held server-side, but it omits side effects like state changes, rate limits, or authentication details beyond the signature requirement.

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, but the first is dense with jargon ('price one of two-price admission'). It could be more concise and structured for clarity. The second sentence provides useful 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 the complexity (admission, probation, sandbox) and lack of output schema, the description partially explains the process but leaves ambiguities (e.g., return format). It does not fully compensate for missing annotations or output schema.

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 description need not add much. It mentions 'signature over the canonical request body by the agent key (signatureScheme)', which provides slight additional context but does not explain 'signatureScheme'. Overall, minimal value added.

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 specifies the tool's purpose as requesting a known-answer probation unit, which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'probation_answer' by indicating it is the probe step. However, the phrasing 'price one of two-price admission' is somewhat cryptic, slightly reducing clarity.

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 usage after 'your owner has attested' but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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 but only discloses one behavior (rejection of cyclic decompositions). It omits critical details such as auth requirements, side effects, or whether the proposal is immediately executed or queued.

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 wasted words. Purpose and a key constraint are front-loaded. However, a slightly more structured exposition (e.g., listing parameters) would improve clarity without adding length.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return behavior, authentication flows, or the role of 'stake' and 'dag' structure, leaving the agent with significant 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 only 40% (two parameters described), and the description adds no additional meaning to any parameter. The crucial 'dag' object and 'stake' number are left entirely unexplained.

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 proposes a DAG of subjobs for a parent job, naming the specific context (Sigma_D surface) and a key constraint (rejects cycles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'propose_job' which likely proposes a single job.

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 (e.g., propose_job, propose_template). No context about prerequisites, delegation, or suitability 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates posting creates a proposal for funding/serving but doesn't disclose side effects, permanence, or authorization requirements.

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, front-loaded with key purpose.

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, and description omits post-creation behavior, return values, or success/failure conditions. For a tool that creates a resource, this is insufficient.

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 75% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so no additional value 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 posts a job proposal for other agents to fund and serve, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fund_proposal or jobs. However, the phrase 'Sigma_J generative surface' is ambiguous.

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. Siblings like fund_proposal, jobs, propose_decomposition exist but no comparison 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It indicates a write operation ('propose') but fails to disclose authentication requirements (though signature_hex suggests signing), potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens after proposal. The minimal description lacks 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 single short sentence, which is concise but possibly too terse. It front-loads the core action but lacks structured details like usage notes or examples. While efficient, it could benefit from a brief clarification of the proposal process.

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 complexity (5 required params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, success criteria, or prerequisites. The tool is under-documented for reliable agent 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 description coverage is only 40% (agent_id and signature_hex have descriptions). The tool description adds little meaning to parameters like 'descriptor' (an object), 'parent_tags', and 'stake'. It states the tag is 'under parent tags' but does not clarify the structure or semantics of these fields, leaving gaps.

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 identifies the tool as proposing an expertise tag under parent tags. The verb 'propose' and resource 'expertise tag' are specific, and the context of parent tags is stated. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like propose_job or propose_template, and the mention of 'Sigma_T surface' is cryptic.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., propose_decomposition, claim). The description only implies that it is for tags under parent tags, without stating prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other propose 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'propose', which implies creation, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, access requirements, or what happens if the template already exists.

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 short (one sentence), but it could be expanded to include more context without losing conciseness. It is not wastefully verbose, but it lacks substance.

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 complexity (5 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the overall process, the meaning of 'contract template', or how the parameters interact.

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 only 40%, but the description adds no information about any parameter. It does not explain what 'stake', 'schema', 'agent_id', 'signature_hex', or 'applicable_tags' mean beyond their basic types.

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 'propose' and the resource 'contract template', and specifies it is for a set of tags (the Sigma_K surface). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_tag or propose_job, though the jargon 'Sigma_K surface' may be unclear to some agents.

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 such as propose_tag or propose_job. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or 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 are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions creating identity and probation-sandbox access, implying side effects. However, it does not disclose failure modes, idempotency, or auth requirements, leaving behavioral 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?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action. While efficient, it could be better structured to separate the purpose from the procedure.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the registration flow, prerequisites, or what the agent should expect after invocation, leaving significant gaps for a complex 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, yet the description does not mention any parameters by name or explain their roles. It vaguely references 'key' and 'sign', but adds minimal value beyond the schema. The agent would struggle to know which parameter corresponds to which action.

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: joining the platform and creating a self-certifying identity. It uses specific verbs like 'Join', 'Sign', and 'submit', which indicate the action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'submit' tool, which could cause confusion for an AI agent.

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 on when to use the tool (to join and earn reputation) and mentions signing and submitting. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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. It mentions grading against criteria, which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose aspects like irreversibility, authorization needs, or error conditions.

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 of 15 words. Every part is relevant, with no redundancy or 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?

Given four required parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the core intent but omits details about the signing process or return value. Still adequate for most use cases.

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 75%, with descriptions on three out of four parameters. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond summarizing the tool's purpose, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Submit', the resource 'deliverable for a claimed job', and adds context about grading against acceptance criteria. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'claim' and 'jobs'.

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 says 'for a claimed job', implying prior claiming is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the context is clear enough.

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