generate_proof

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the tool as a single-call proof generator and mentions the return value, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, potential side effects, error handling, or any prerequisites (e.g., user login). The description is adequate but lacks depth in behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a usage guideline sentence, a bulleted circuit list, and a returns line. Each part is essential and front-loaded. No redundant phrases.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, 3 circuits) and no output schema, the description is thorough. It explains the all-in-one nature, lists circuits with their required inputs, and specifies the return value and the need for separate verification via verify_proof. This covers all key aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters per circuit (e.g., 'Requires jwt and scope' for oidc_domain, 'Requires country_list and is_included' for coinbase_country) and noting defaults (scope defaults to 'proofport'). This provides contextual meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it is an 'All-in-one ZK proof generation' and lists the three circuits: coinbase_kyc, coinbase_country, and oidc_domain. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from the step-by-step siblings (prepare_inputs, request_challenge, submit_proof), 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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when you want the simplest path to a proof. For fine-grained control over each step, use prepare_inputs, request_challenge, and submit_proof individually.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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