explain_circuit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the output in detail (plain-English explanation, signal map) and implicitly indicates a non-destructive, analytical operation. However, it could mention that it does not execute or modify the circuit.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details. Every word is meaningful, no fluff. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 the return type (plain-English explanation) and its components (signals, constraint map). It covers the essential information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly, though it could hint at the output's structure (e.g., text format).

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by noting that the 'lang' parameter is optional and auto-detected, which goes beyond the schema's 'If omitted' note. This contextual detail helps the agent decide on parameter usage.

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 provides a 'Plain-English explanation of a ZK circuit' and lists specific outputs (what it proves, signals, constraint map). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'audit_circuit' (security audit) and 'suggest_constraints' (adding constraints), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions it is 'useful for onboarding reviewers', providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context of 'onboarding' implies it is for understanding rather than debugging or auditing, which are covered by sibling tools.

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