chimera_prove

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

With no annotations, the description covers core behavior: execution, proof generation, and outputs. It lacks details on error handling or resource usage but is sufficient for understanding the tool's primary actions.

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 succinct sentences with no wasted words; the first sentence captures the core action and output, the second provides value by comparing to an alternative.

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 single parameter and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains inputs and outputs (results, hash chain, root hash, verdict). Slightly more detail on the output format would improve completeness.

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 100% with a clear description for the sole parameter 'source' (ChimeraLang source to prove). The tool description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the verb (execute, generate) and resource (ChimeraLang, Merkle-chain proof), with a distinct cryptographic focus that differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly contrasts with 'direct reasoning', explaining when to use this tool for auditable, tamper-evident proofs, but could be more specific compared to similar chimera tools like chimera_verify.

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