Groundwork Public Proof

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it returns 'static registry metadata and the live public MCP URL' and clarifies it does not involve local measurement, tenant data access, or network calls.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. Every word serves a purpose: stating usage, return value, and what the tool does not do. No 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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains return values ('static registry metadata and the live public MCP URL') and behaviors. For a zero-parameter tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description confirms 'Takes no arguments', which adds no new semantic meaning but is consistent and clear.

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's purpose: 'locate measured Groundwork proof'. It specifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like groundwork_public_status or groundwork_trial_contract, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 phrase 'Use first' provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (as an initial step). It also explicitly states what the tool does not do ('does not measure locally, read tenant data, or make network calls'), helping avoid misuse.

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