rohan_execute_handshake

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that confidential parameters are canonicalized via RFC 8785 and hashed in client RAM, never exposed on-chain or in model logs, which is meaningful privacy context. However, it does not describe authorization requirements, irreversibility or side effects of the state transition, error behavior, or what a successful execution returns.

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 concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the confidentiality behavior immediately following. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary wording.

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?

For a state-transition tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the privacy mechanism well but leaves out operational details such as permissions, failure modes, and what happens after execution. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke a confidential write operation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters, including agentId, actionSummary, counterpartyId, and confidentialPayload. The description reinforces the confidentialPayload handling but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the legacy intent fallback or expected actionSummary formats. Baseline 3 is 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 states a specific verb and resource: executing a confidential zero-knowledge state transition on Midnight Blockchain. It is clear enough to distinguish a write/execute operation from read-oriented siblings like rohan_get_ledger_state, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from rohan_verify_commitment or explain what _handshake_ means.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives among the sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is for submitting confidential state transitions rather than reading or verifying existing state.

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