proofmill_explain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is per-key and depends on a saved comparison receipt, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output or failure mode to expect, what happens when the key is missing, or any preconditions beyond having a receipt.

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 active-voice sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description gives enough to understand the operation and identify both inputs. However, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, and the description does not explain what the returned 'trace' looks like or how the saved receipt should be obtained, leaving notable gaps for autonomous invocation.

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 0%, and the description partially compensates by mapping 'receipt' to a saved comparison receipt and 'key' to a business key. However, it adds no format details, sources, or constraints for either string parameter, so the agent still has to infer what values to supply.

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 states a specific action ('trace') and a specific resource ('one business key across the four executions in a saved comparison receipt'), which makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from validate/profile-style tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the reference to a saved comparison receipt ties it clearly to the compare workflow.

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 phrase 'saved comparison receipt' clearly implies this tool is meant to be used after a comparison has been produced, so the intended context is reasonably explicit. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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