zkproofport-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only discovery operation ('List all'), specifies what information is returned ('including verifier addresses and authorized signers'), and mentions the workflow context. However, it doesn't address potential limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first explains what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 that this is a simple read-only discovery tool with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format (e.g., structure of the list).

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 schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'No parameters required', which clarifies that this is a parameterless call and reinforces its discovery purpose, earning a higher score.

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 specific action ('List all ZK circuits'), identifies the resource ('supported by ZKProofport'), and includes additional details like 'verifier addresses and authorized signers'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on discovery rather than proof generation or verification operations.

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 on when to use this tool ('Call this first to discover available circuits before starting proof generation'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_proof, prepare_inputs, etc. It establishes a clear prerequisite workflow.

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