zkproofport-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the multi-step computational process (hash, sign, query, build proof) which gives good behavioral context, but doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, authentication requirements, or what happens if attestation data isn't found. For a complex 6-parameter tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 structured: first sentence states the overall purpose and multi-step process, second sentence provides critical sequencing guidance, third sentence gives circuit-specific parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and the most important information (purpose and sequencing) is front-loaded.

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?

For a complex tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well but has gaps. It covers purpose, sequencing, and parameter relationships effectively, but doesn't describe the return value format or error behavior. Given the computational complexity implied, more information about outputs would be helpful for completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context: it explains that for oidc_domain circuit, 'provide jwt and scope instead of Coinbase-specific parameters', which clarifies the mutual exclusivity between parameter groups. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions by explaining relationships between parameters.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('prepare', 'computes', 'signs', 'queries', 'builds', 'returns') and resources ('circuit inputs', 'signal hash', 'attestation wallet', 'EAS', 'Merkle proof'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating this is 'Step 1' and should be called 'BEFORE request_challenge', making the scope and sequence 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 usage guidance: 'Call this BEFORE request_challenge' establishes sequencing, and 'For oidc_domain circuit, provide jwt and scope instead of Coinbase-specific parameters' gives circuit-specific parameter alternatives. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and how parameters differ across circuit types.

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