prove_entry_inclusion

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: it explains what the proof bundle includes (entry, signed epoch with Ed25519+SLH-DSA hybrid signature, RFC 6962 Merkle inclusion proof, full epoch chain), notes the version (v0.13), and specifies prerequisites and error scenarios. This far exceeds the burden of unannotated tools.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence defines the action and output, second sentence details the bundle contents, third sentence covers prerequisites and error conditions. No extraneous words; each sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 the complexity of a cryptographic proof tool, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides substantial context: it lists the components of the returned bundle, explains the requirement, and covers error cases. It does not explain how to interpret the proof or the exact format, but for an AI agent the details given are sufficient to decide when and how to use the tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that row_id is for 'fact, constraint, event, or decision ID', which goes beyond the schema's 'ID of the fact / constraint / event / decision'. It also explains the purpose of the parameter in context. However, no additional format or constraints are given, so one point above baseline.

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: 'Return a cryptographic inclusion-proof bundle for a persisted row_id'. It specifies the verb 'return', the resource 'cryptographic inclusion-proof bundle', and the input 'row_id (fact, constraint, event, or decision ID)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audit_log_head or get_compaction_audit.

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 states when to use the tool: for proving inclusion of a persisted row_id in the tamper-evident audit log. It also provides clear context: requires WORLD_MODEL_AUDIT_LOG=on at startup, and describes error conditions (opt-in off, row_id not found, entry in unclosed backlog). No alternative tool is named, but the context is sufficient to avoid misuse.

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