explain_proof

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a read-only behavior ('Reads the proof's metadata'), says the original file is not needed, and implies it does not perform verification itself ('how to independently verify'). It omits error handling details, but for a simple explainer this is adequate.

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 front-loads the core purpose, then adds a compact metadata summary and clean Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 a single well-documented parameter, a clear return description, and an output schema present, an agent has everything necessary to select and invoke the tool correctly. The only minor gap is explicit sibling routing, already covered in usage_guidelines.

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% — the schema only says proof_json is a string. The description's Args section fully compensates by explaining the string can be a JSON payload OR a path to a proof JSON file, adding essential 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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('blockchain timestamp proof'), and the rest clarifies it reads metadata and describes verification. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that compute or verify hashes/files.

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 by noting it 'does not require the original file' and works by reading proof metadata. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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