publish_proof

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the action and a constraint (explicitly allowed webhook) but fails to cover side effects, permissions, error handling, idempotency, or what the response looks like. Significant behavioral information is missing.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key constraint without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easily scannable.

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 a tool with four required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits parameter meanings, webhook payload expectations, authentication, failure modes, and return value behavior, making automated invocation unreliable.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (summary, revision, targetUrl, repository). 'Commit-bound' vaguely relates to revision/summary but does not clarify formats, constraints, or relationships. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action (publish), the object (commit-bound proof summary), and the destination (explicitly allowed HTTPS webhook). It is specific and unambiguous, even without sibling tools to differentiate from.

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 implies a use case (publishing proof summaries to webhooks) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it state exclusions. The phrase 'explicitly allowed' hints at a prerequisite but does not elaborate.

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