advance_proof_guided_context

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

With no annotations present, the description carries real weight here and mostly delivers: it discloses durability and idempotency, the two possible response shapes (status=awaiting_model versus a locally verified terminal output), and that missing or invalid bindings are rejected. The one notable gap is that 'No provider call is performed by Entroly' is ambiguous about who does call the provider, which matters for an agent reasoning about side effects.

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 core action and the idempotency guarantee are front-loaded, and the response-shape sentences are dense but each carries information. Minor waste in the trailing provider-call sentence, which raises a question rather than answering one.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description does add the response-status vocabulary an agent needs. But for a stateful, idempotency-keyed round-advance operation with five undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition is not complete enough to call confidently without experimentation.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Echo the revision and request digest issued for the actual model call' maps onto expected_revision and request_sha256, but session_id, model_output, and idempotency_key are never explained, and the format of the digest or what a valid revision looks like is left unstated.

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 first sentence names a specific action and outcome: verify one model round and return either exact evidence or a final answer. That is far better than restating the name, but it never distinguishes this tool from the very similarly named siblings prepare_proof_guided_context and inspect_proof_guided_context, so an agent still has to infer where this sits in the round lifecycle.

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?

Usage is implied through the continuation/terminal response taxonomy, which tells the agent what to expect after calling, and the instruction to 'echo the revision and request digest' is a concrete per-call obligation. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus prepare_/inspect_proof_guided_context, and no stated prerequisites or ordering in the session lifecycle.

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