request_challenge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sends circuit+inputs to the server, returns nonce and TEE key, and is part of a flow. While it doesn't explicitly state side effects, the description implies a server-side challenge creation (POST action). The behavior is mostly transparent for a request step.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and step are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Perfect size for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides step context, endpoint, prerequisite, sent data, and return values. This is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly within the flow. Sibling tools confirm it fits in a sequence.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description only adds that inputs are from prepare_inputs, which is already implied by the prerequisite statement. The schema itself describes both parameters adequately. The description adds minimal extra semantic value 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' in a step-by-step flow, requests a challenge from the server, sends circuit and inputs to a specific endpoint, and returns nonce and TEE key. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'prepare_inputs' (Step 1) and 'generate_proof' (likely later step).

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 the prerequisite: 'You MUST call prepare_inputs first' and positions itself as Step 2. This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool and what must be done before. No ambiguity.

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