prove_fact

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral info. It mentions 'Merkle inclusion proof' and privacy, but does not disclose error behavior, performance implications, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if the fact is absent).

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words. Every part 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?

For a 2-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but limited. It doesn't explain the output format (the proof) or how to use it with siblings like 'verify_proof'.

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%, so description must compensate. However, it only names 'subject' and 'relation' indirectly without explaining their meaning or adding any constraints 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 specifies that the tool generates a Merkle inclusion proof for a fact in the knowledge state, with an added privacy guarantee ('without revealing other facts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'learn_fact' and 'recall'.

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 a use case (proving existence without revealing other facts) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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