kagami

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions privileged access and actions (run commands, reveal prompt, manage keys), but does not disclose side effects, destructive potential, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Insufficient for a privileged 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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with 'Privileged admin tool'. While concise, it omits crucial details, making it minimally adequate but not well-structured.

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 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description fails to explain the 'command' parameter or the tool's behavior. It only provides a vague list of capabilities, missing essential context for effective use.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'command' parameter. No enum, format, or example is provided, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to use the single parameter.

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 is a privileged admin tool and lists specific actions: run agent commands, reveal system prompt, manage API keys. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like credential_vault, injection_scan, and payment_router.

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 labels it as a 'Privileged admin tool' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. No when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only states 'retrieve,' omitting behavioral traits like read-only nature, security implications, error handling, or whether the tool is destructive. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence, concise but lacks structure. It earns its place but is too brief to be fully informative.

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 low complexity (1 param, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, constraints, or behavior, leaving critical gaps.

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 has one parameter 'service' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter at all, leaving its meaning ambiguous. No added 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?

Description clearly states the tool is an internal secret store for retrieving API keys, tokens, and credentials, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (admin_console, injection_scan, payment_router) which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. With no sibling differentiation in usage, the description fails to guide selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively carries the full burden. It discloses deterministic behavior, non-LLM nature, bounded 0-100 score, exact rules matched, and an Ed25519-signed verdict for offline verification. This provides substantial behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose immediately, and every part adds value without unnecessary words. This is highly efficient.

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?

Despite the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does (scan for injection), input requirements (untrusted text), and output details (score, rules, signed verdict). For a tool with one parameter and simple behavior, this is fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the input is a 'chunk of untrusted text' for prompt-injection scanning. However, it does not mention constraints like maximum length or encoding, which would further aid the agent.

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 identifies the tool as scanning untrusted text for prompt-injection, with specific outputs (score, rules, signed verdict). The verb 'scan' and resource 'chunk of untrusted text' precisely define its function, and it is easily distinguished from unrelated siblings like admin_console.

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 indicates the tool is for scanning untrusted text for prompt-injection and emphasizes it is a deterministic rule engine, not an LLM. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though siblings are unrelated, so confusion is minimal.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies mutation and financial risk, but fails to mention reversibility, required permissions, or potential side effects. For a payment tool, this is critically insufficient.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose, but it is too terse for a sensitive financial tool. It lacks structure and omits critical information, so it does not earn its place fully.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a sensitive domain, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, prerequisites, or transaction behavior.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It maps 'to' to 'payout recipient address' and 'amount' to 'release funds', but provides no details on format, units, or constraints (e.g., valid address types, amount precision).

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 sets a payout recipient address and releases funds, which distinguishes it from sibling tools (admin_console, credential_vault, injection_scan) that are not payment-related. However, it could be more specific about the context, e.g., blockchain or fiat.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or on prerequisites like authentication or wallet setup. The description lacks usage context entirely.

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