draft_proof

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at being non-destructive by saying 'without sending traffic,' but does not explain what drafting entails, side effects, or response behavior.

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 succinct but too sparse to be effective. It lacks necessary detail while also not being well-structured to convey core functionality.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a vague purpose, the agent has insufficient information to determine when or how to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

All three parameters (engagement_id, card_id, playbook_id) have no descriptions in the schema or prose. Coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 'Describe an allowlisted proof' is vague; 'describe' is not a strong verb for the action, and 'allowlisted proof' is ambiguous. It does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like execute_proof or draft_waves.

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 only usage hint is a negative constraint ('without sending traffic'), which is insufficient. No positive conditions or comparisons to alternatives (e.g., when to use draft_proof vs execute_proof) are given.

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