pin.prove

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, making safety clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the evidence pack includes a slice, path, line, full SHA, content hash, handle, and verify next-step, giving insight into what the tool produces beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads 'Primary product tool' and packs multiple pieces of information into a compact form. It has no filler, though the heavy jargon may reduce accessibility. Overall, it is concise and well-structured for the information it conveys.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this one-line description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how to formulate a claim, the meaning of 'verify next-step,' or any prerequisites. The tool's complexity is under-explained, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly in all cases.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the five parameters (claim, lineStart, lineEnd, repository, sourcePath). Terms like 'slice' and 'path' hint at line and sourcePath but are not explicit mappings, leaving the parameter meanings largely undocumented. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 says 'Primary product tool: one-path evidence pack' and lists components, indicating it produces an evidence pack for factual claims. The phrase 'Prefer for every factual claim' clarifies its intended use. However, the language is jargon-heavy and lacks a simple verb phrase, making it less immediately clear than a straightforward verb+resource description.

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 instruction 'Prefer for every factual claim' gives clear guidance on when to use this tool, implying it is the default choice for factual claims. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by positioning it as the go-to for factual assertions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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