logicnodes_zk_compute_attest

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals return type (ZK proof hash), anchoring, and cost per proof. However, it does not address idempotency, side effects, authorization, or state mutation, leaving gaps.

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 three concise sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, proof property, and output with cost. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with core functionality.

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 or annotations, the description explains purpose and return type, but omits usage guidelines, detailed parameter roles, behavioral details, and full output format. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 67%, but the tool description adds no per-parameter explanation beyond schema. public_inputs lacks description in both schema and tool description, leaving its role unclear.

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 performs zero-knowledge compute attestation, proving computation correctness without revealing inputs. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying ZK and anchoring to Base, and mentions returning a proof hash and cost.

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 use for verifying computations with ZK, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like logicnodes_inference_attest or logicnodes_sig_verify. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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