submit_proof

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

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting. It discloses timing (30-90 seconds) and internal behavior (TEE server runs Noir circuit, builds Prover.toml). However, it omits error conditions, authentication requirements, and whether the operation is destructive, which would be expected for a submission tool.

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 four sentences, front-loading the purpose. Each sentence adds information: purpose, internal process, timing, and additional detail. No superfluous content, though the last sentence could be merged or omitted without loss.

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 lack of an output schema, the description mentions 'returns the UltraHonk proof' but does not specify the return structure or error cases. It also does not address prerequisites like prior steps (though implied) or rate limits. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that inputs should come from prepare_inputs ('Full ProveInputs object from prepare_inputs'), contextualizing the parameter beyond the schema's generic description.

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 action: 'Submit prepared inputs to generate the ZK proof.' It is specific about the step in the flow (Step 3) and distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_proof by mentioning TEE server, Noir circuit, and UltraHonk proof. No ambiguity.

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 implies usage as part of a step-by-step flow (Step 3 after prepare_inputs) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like generate_proof, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied context.

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