prepare_proof_guided_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool performs only local operations (selection, security checks, commitments, auditing) and does not call a model. It also mentions the path constraint. This is reasonably transparent, though it lacks details on error handling or permissions.

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 concise, with multiple sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail what the tool does. No superfluous information is present.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no param descriptions, the description is incomplete for parameter guidance. It does provide a clear workflow and output usage, but the lack of param semantics leaves a significant gap. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but parameter guidance remains lacking.

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%, but the description does not explain any parameters beyond implying path must be inside the project root. The other 6 parameters (query, max_rounds, token_budget, idempotency_key, max_chunks_per_round, recovery_token_budget) are left completely undescribed, failing to add meaningful guidance.

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 tool's purpose: 'Prepare a durable proof-guided model request from local documents.' It specifies what the tool does (local selection, security checks, commitments, signed auditing) and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it does not call a model, and directs the next step to 'advance_proof_guided_context'.

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 provides a clear workflow: use this tool, then send the returned request to the host's model route, then pass the model text to 'advance_proof_guided_context'. It also states the path constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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