request_proof

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

Description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits like asynchronicity, cost, or side effects. With no annotations, the description fails to provide essential behavioral context.

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 sentence, but it is too brief given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required); it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Does not explain the purpose of parameters beyond schema, the return value (no output schema), or the overall workflow (e.g., asynchronous request submission). Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like 'vkHash' and 'stdinUri'.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's action ('submit') and resource ('proof request'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'verify_proof' or 'get_proof_status'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'verify_proof') or prerequisites (e.g., account balance, network state).

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