rohan_zk_handshake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys one behavioral trait — confidential parameters are not exposed — but says nothing about whether this mutates on-chain state irreversibly, what permissions/DID auth are needed, or what the response contains. For a cryptographic state-transition write, that is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded before the privacy rationale. Efficient, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first.

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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema and no output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain returns. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the missing side-effect, irreversibility, and auth context leaves it only minimally complete.

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 all three parameters (intent, agentId, counterpartyId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond that, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb+resource ('Executes a cryptographic zero-knowledge state transition on Midnight Blockchain') and clarifies what is proven versus exposed. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not need sibling differentiation since none exist.

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?

It hints at the domain ('intent, transaction, or inter-agent agreement') but never states when to call this versus a plain transaction, nor any prerequisites. There are no alternatives listed and no conditions that select this tool over others.

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