seal_content

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a cryptographic, blockchain-based write and that a citation is returned, which implies permanence. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects such as the on-chain record being public, irreversible, or potentially requiring network or fee considerations.

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 only two sentences and has no fluff. The first sentence establishes what the tool does; the second gives the trigger for using it and a mandatory operational rule. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 the core required parameter, content, and for the expected follow-up action, the description is sufficient: provide content, get a citation, and add it to the answer. Since an output schema exists and the other parameters have defaults, the lack of detail on title and agent_id is a minor gap. The main omission is explaining the real-world implications of sealing something onto a blockchain.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. It only clarifies that content is 'text/code/audits'—title and agent_id are not described beyond their schema defaults and names, leaving their roles partly implicit.

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 names a specific action ('seals'), a resource ('text/code/audits'), and a concrete target (TON Blockchain), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It even reframes the purpose as notarizing findings. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_proof_status, but the core purpose is clear.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this tool to notarize your findings.' It also provides a required follow-up behavior—append the returned citation to the final answer—which helps the agent use the result correctly. It does not give a when-not-to-use clause or call out the sibling alternative.

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