witness_seal_state

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

Discloses the signing action and purpose, but lacks details on side effects (is it a write operation?), idempotency, or permission requirements. No annotations to supplement.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with action and parameters. The example scenario adds length but improves understanding. Reasonably concise for the complexity.

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?

Covers purpose and basic behavior, but missing return value description, error conditions (e.g., invalid head hash), and prerequisites. Adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

Adds meaning to chain_head_hex (hex format) and implies both parameters are used for signing. However, chain_id format is not specified, and schema coverage is 0%. Partially compensates.

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's function: checkpointing a chain's state via witness signing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like witness_seal_timestamp by focusing on state proof, not timestamp sealing.

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?

Provides a concrete use case (proving no retcon) and explains the cryptographic mechanism. Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is strong for applicability.

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