trinity_proof

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: stages lacking evidence are returned as explicit nulls, and it does not write files or run workers. It stops short of describing return shape beyond the stage list, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the use case and constraints, with no filler. Both sentences earn their place by covering purpose, null semantics, and the file-writing alternative.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the bundle stages and null behavior. Combined with a single fully documented parameter and clear read-only semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (task_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail for task_id; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Read one task's full evidence chain as a structured proof bundle') and enumerates the bundle contents (route, work result, review, verification, acceptance, timeline). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like trinity_status or trinity_tasks, which do not return evidence chains.

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?

Explicitly names the use case ('audit or export why a task was accepted or blocked') and gives a when-not plus alternative: writing JSON/Markdown files is done via the trinity-lite proof CLI, not this tool. The selection condition is stated, not inferred.

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