reveal_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the consequence that reporting publishes the secret so the counterparty and watchers can settle the other leg, which signals this is a consequential disclosure rather than a benign read. It doesn't state permissions, irreversibility of revealing the secret, or what happens on failure.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the precondition then the action and its purpose. Little waste, though it is slightly dense/run-on.

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-style disclosure tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description covers the why and when but omits return behavior and the irreversibility of publishing the secret, leaving meaningful 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 25% (only 'secret' is documented), so some compensation is expected. The description maps to 'secret' and 'claim_tx' but adds nothing about swap_id or the 'leg' enum, leaving those to the schema's self-evident naming.

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 (report) and the resources it takes (revealed secret + claim tx), and frames the task as disclosing the preimage so the counterparty can settle. It implies a sequencing relative to the sibling claim_leg (after the on-chain claim) without naming that sibling directly.

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?

"After you claimed your receive leg on-chain (with your own wallet)" gives a clear prerequisite/timing condition for using this tool, implicitly excluding use before the on-chain claim. It stops short of naming alternatives like claim_leg or fund_leg, or saying 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.