audit_circuit

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

With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses return values (findings, summary, score, ZKWC tags) but does not confirm read-only behavior or mention side effects, auth needs, or limits. Adequate for a non-destructive audit tool, but not explicit.

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?

Two sentences, directly conveying purpose and output without unnecessary words. Front-loaded with action and resource, followed by return structure. No redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (structured findings, summary, score, ZKWC ids). For a tool with two parameters, this covers the essentials, though noting whether the audit is read-only would add clarity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond schema. It restates the supported languages, which are already in the enum, and does not detail format or constraints beyond 'full circuit source code'. Meets baseline but doesn't elevate.

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 audits ZK circuits for soundness and constraint bugs, specifying supported languages (Circom, Noir, Halo2). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_constraint (specific check) and explain_circuit (explanation), as the verb 'audit' and scope are unique.

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 implies the tool is for comprehensive audits but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like check_constraint or explain_circuit. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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