prepare_inputs

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

No annotations present; the description details internal steps (computes hash, signs, queries EAS, builds Merkle proof). It does not cover side effects or prerequisites beyond being step 1, but the level of detail is good. No contradictions.

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: first sentence summarizes purpose and operations, second sentence adds conditional guidance. No redundant information, front-loaded with key details.

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 flow context (siblings include request_challenge, generate_proof), the description places this tool as step 1, explains its output (inputs for proof generation), and covers circuit-specific variations. Complete for an agent to decide usage.

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 descriptions for each parameter. The description adds circuit-specific usage guidance (e.g., for oidc_domain, provide jwt and scope) and states the default for scope, providing additional context beyond the schema.

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 'Step 1 of the step-by-step flow: Prepare all circuit inputs' and lists specific operations like computing signal hash, signing, querying EAS, building Merkle proof. It differentiates from sibling tools by indicating this is a preparatory step before request_challenge.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE request_challenge' and provides conditional guidance for oidc_domain circuit (provide jwt and scope instead of Coinbase-specific parameters). This clearly distinguishes 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.