hai_proof

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a wrapper and operates on a completed mission, but it does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if evidence is missing. For a state-changing closing operation, this is a notable 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action and condition are front-loaded, and the wrapper relationship is stated economically. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. However, the tool has four required parameters, no annotations, and a nested evidence object, yet the description only vaguely covers evidence and mission closing. It omits guidance on contract_version and outcome_summary, and provides no safety or prerequisite context for a destructive closing action.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It adds some meaning by describing evidence as 'verified per-criterion' and implies mission_id through 'close a mission,' but it says nothing about contract_version or outcome_summary, leaving two required parameters semantically opaque.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Close a mission' with a precise condition, 'only against verified per-criterion evidence.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning itself as a thin wrapper over hai_close_mission, so an agent understands its specialized role.

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 phrase 'only against verified per-criterion evidence' gives a clear usage condition and implicitly warns not to use it without such evidence. It names the underlying alternative hai_close_mission, but does not explicitly spell out when to choose that alternative versus hai_proof.

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