request_challenge

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the network request and that the server returns nonce and TEE key information. Lacks details on side effects, error behavior, or authentication requirements, but covers the core interaction.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose and flow position. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers prerequisite, endpoint, input format, and server response. An agent can invoke this tool correctly with the given information.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying that 'inputs' is the full ProveInputs object from prepare_inputs and accepts JSON string or object. This provides critical format and origin 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 it is Step 2 of a flow and requests a challenge from the server via a specific endpoint. It names the verb 'request' and the resource 'challenge', and positions itself relative to siblings like 'prepare_inputs' and 'generate_proof'.

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 states it must be called after 'prepare_inputs' and specifies the endpoint. Provides clear sequencing but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives. However, for a step in a defined flow this is sufficient.

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