Seal and audit every step in a reasoning session, returning FULLY_PROVEN only when all active steps are deterministically proven plus the SHA-256 Merkle head hash.
Seal and audit all steps submitted in a reasoning session. Returns FULLY_PROVEN only if every active step was deterministically proven, along with the SHA-256 Merkle head hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | Yes | Session identifier to seal and report. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key output condition (FULLY_PROVEN only if every active step is deterministically proven) and the SHA-256 Merkle head hash, but it does not state whether sealing is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the session is not fully proven.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical output condition and hash. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must convey behavioral and return details. It covers the primary success condition and one returned artifact, but leaves gaps around other possible return states, error behavior, side effects of sealing, and authentication requirements.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'session' parameter, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description does not add syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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: 'Seal and audit all steps submitted in a reasoning session.' It implies a distinction from step-level tools like verify_step by emphasizing all steps in a session, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.
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 context for use: finalizing/auditing a reasoning session after steps have been submitted, with the precondition that FULLY_PROVEN requires every active step to be proven. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.