prove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it discloses the side effect of writing the full package and private disclosures to disk, states the return value is a path, and explicitly notes that salts are not leaked in the response. It does not cover error conditions or prerequisites, but the main behavioral traits are clear.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then states the side effect and return value, and ends with a critical privacy guarantee. Every clause 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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 params, nested objects, no output schema) and absent annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it writes to disk, what it returns, and a privacy safeguard. The schema fills in the parameter-specific details, so the description is nearly complete. It could have mentioned how the result connects to verify or next steps, but that is not critical for invoking the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it reinforces the notion of private activity data but does not explain recipe, recipe_path, or include_proof beyond the schema's own rich 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 uses a specific verb ('Produce') and identifies the exact resource ('zero-knowledge proof package from private activity data'), along with implementation detail (bb.js and Noir). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools verify and status by focusing on proof generation rather than verification or status reporting.

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 when to use the tool: when a zero-knowledge proof package needs to be produced from private activity data. However, it does not explicitly contrast with verify or status, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The include_proof parameter adds a targeted use case (submitting to Methodology Graph), but that lives in the schema, not the description.

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