prepare_proof_guided_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: it performs no model call, it makes exact-recovery commitments, it produces signed auditing, and the returned binding must not be replaced by a newer one. That is unusually rich behavioral context. It still omits permission requirements and whether the durable request persists state or has other 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope, the no-model-call caveat, and the handoff sequence. It is dense with backticked identifiers but each sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 is present, so return values need not be explained, but the tool has seven parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations. The description covers the workflow and path constraint yet leaves most tunables undocumented, so an agent lacks enough information to call it correctly beyond the required two arguments.

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%, so the seven parameters arrive as bare titles. The description only adds meaning for 'path' via the project-root restriction; 'query', 'max_rounds', 'token_budget', 'idempotency_key', 'max_chunks_per_round', and 'recovery_token_budget' are never explained, leaving the agent to guess at budget units, idempotency behavior, and round semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('prepare a durable proof-guided model request from local documents') and explicitly scopes the tool's work to local selection, security checks, and signed auditing. It also distinguishes itself from advance_proof_guided_context by stating it does not call a model, though the term 'proof-guided' is unexplained jargon that slightly blurs the purpose for a first-time agent.

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?

It lays out the two-step workflow explicitly: send the returned request through the host model route, then feed model text plus revision/request_sha256 into advance_proof_guided_context. It also gives a clear precondition ('path must remain inside the attached project root'). It stops short of naming when to prefer this over unrelated context tools like optimize_context or explain_context.

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