build_proof_report

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-destructive operation, and the description adds that the behavior is writing a Markdown report with specific content. It does not disclose whether it updates task state, requires permissions, or produces a stored artifact, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, output format, and primary content with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return value details are covered, but the description omits the workflow context in which this tool should be invoked. Given the large sibling set, an agent lacks enough information to know that this report should be built after verification or what task states are valid.

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% and the task_id parameter is already documented as 'Identifier returned by create_task.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and names a concrete resource ('Markdown proof report'), and it states the report's contents ('matrix and hash-linked evidence ledger'), which makes the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as prepare_verification or execute_verification, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, and it does not state prerequisites such as whether verification or evidence recording must happen first. The only contextual hint is the task_id parameter, which is not enough to route an agent to the right point in the workflow.

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