download_lean_proof

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It discloses the error condition for invalid certificates and the return structure. However, it omits safety aspects (read-only implied but not stated) and does not detail behavior like idempotency or rate limits.

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?

Very concise: two sentences and a return list. Front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 one required parameter and an output schema described in text, the description covers return values and integration with kernel_check_proof. Lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., proof size), but is largely complete.

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?

The parameter certificate_id has 0% schema coverage and the description does not explain what it is or how to obtain it. It only uses the term 'certificate' in context, which weakly implies the ID's role. This is insufficient.

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?

Clearly states 'Download the self-contained Lean 4 proof for a VALID certificate', using a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like kernel_check_proof (verification) and get_certificate (retrieval).

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?

Explicitly mentions that the returned lean_source can be passed to kernel_check_proof, suggesting a usage flow. Also warns that INVALID certificates result in an error. Lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives like verifying locally without downloading.

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