list_my_proofs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It accurately describes the tool as read-only (listing proofs), explains the return structure, and states the empty array condition. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects or permission requirements, which are minimal for a list operation.

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 (four sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the fields.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, provides context ('like an agent resume'), usage scenarios, and a note on when it returns an empty array. No additional information is needed.

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 zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'No parameters required.' This is sufficient for a parameterless tool, adding clarity beyond the schema.

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 action ('List all execution proofs') and resource ('created by this agent'). It specifies the output format (JSON array with fields). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'verify_proof' or 'report_skill_usage', which could cause confusion.

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 use cases ('review your usage history, share proof links, or verify your trust score') and notes that an empty array is returned if no skills have been reported. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives such as 'verify_proof' for verification.

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