proofrelay.describe_cli_sdk_helper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds that it requires no authentication, mutates nothing, and returns JSON text. No contradiction, and extra context is provided.

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, front-loading the main purpose and using multiple short sentences. It avoids unnecessary details, though slightly more structure could improve scannability.

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 parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the tool's role, usage context, and return content (statuses, endpoint, flow). No 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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details and focuses on the tool's purpose and output. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 as an integration guide for the ProofRelay helper pattern, specifying it is read-only and returns JSON text. It distinguishes from sibling recommend_checkpoint by naming it explicitly.

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 clear context for when to use (understanding how to wrap actions) and suggests an alternative (recommend_checkpoint). However, it does not discuss exclusions or differentiate from all siblings.

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