prove_independence

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

No annotations provided, but the description explains the behavioral protocol: sealing an assessment via a commitment hash and nonce. It also instructs on subsequent verification steps. Does not detail store/side effects, but adequately covers key behavior.

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?

Very concise (3 sentences) with each sentence adding value. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.

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 one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly. Includes follow-up steps (verify with verify_claim). Minor ambiguity about return format but acceptable.

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 single parameter content is not explicitly described; the description implies it is the assessment to be sealed but does not specify format or constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more explicit parameter meaning.

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 states the tool seals an assessment before seeing others', establishing a commitment protocol. It distinguishes from siblings like make_claim and verify_claim by specifying the role in a commitment-reveal pattern.

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 says when to use (before seeing others' assessments) and what to do with the outputs: share only commitment_hash, keep nonce_b64 secret, and later verify with verify_claim. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives but is sufficiently specific.

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