w3_proof_ls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what the tool does operationally (e.g., lists proofs, retrieves verification data), its effects (e.g., read-only vs. mutative), or any constraints like authentication needs or rate limits. The vague phrasing offers no actionable behavioral insights.

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 a single vague sentence that under-specifies rather than being concise. It wastes space on redundant phrasing ('Tool for...operation') without delivering meaningful content. A truly concise description would front-load purpose or usage, but this fails to do so effectively.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this tool is inadequately documented. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent unsure of the tool's function, behavior, or output. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, this is a significant gap.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, documenting the 'json' boolean for output formatting. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond this, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies. No additional value is provided over the structured 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 'Tool for w3_proof_ls operation' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify the verb (e.g., list, retrieve) or resource (e.g., proofs, verification data), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like w3_ls or w3_delegation_ls. This provides minimal useful information to an agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like w3_ls (general listing) and w3_delegation_ls (specific to delegations), there's no indication of what makes w3_proof_ls distinct or appropriate for certain contexts. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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