pin.prove_set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral constraints: supports 1-8 paths and multi-repo, which are not fully captured by annotations. It also implies a workflow (Next: pin.verify_set) without contradicting any annotation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that pack purpose, usage, and next-step guidance. Every phrase earns its place—'Multi-cite evidence set' defines the output, '(1–8 paths, multi-repo OK)' adds key constraints, and the next-step pointer is a clean workflow hint. No fluff.

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 has one nested parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or how it behaves beyond the annotations. It does not mention return values or the meaning of 'prove_set' (e.g., does it output a proof object?). The workflow hint is helpful, but the missing return semantics leave a gap for an agent trying to use the 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?

The description provides no additional meaning for the 'items' parameter beyond restating the min/max bounds already in the schema ('1–8 paths' directly mirrors minItems/maxItems). It does not explain fields like repository, sourcePath, claim, or line numbers, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 indicates this tool creates a multi-cite evidence set with 1-8 paths, and the mention of 'Next: pin.verify_set' differentiates it from the verify workflow. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'creates' or 'pins', leaving some ambiguity about the exact action.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Use when an answer needs several citations') and hints at the next step (pin.verify_set), providing workflow context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the 'use when' is sufficient and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pin.prove.

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