[rsa] 生成 RSA 密钥对。 【参数】
key_size：2048 / 3072 / 4096（位）
private_key_password：可选，设置后私钥 PEM 用 AES-256-CBC 加密保护 【输出】public_key_in_pem、private_key_in_pem、key_size。 【后续操作】公钥用于 rsa_encryption / rsa_verify，私钥用于 rsa_decryption / rsa_sign。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_size | No | RSA 密钥位数，可选值：2048 / 3072 / 4096 | |
| private_key_password | No | 私钥的加密密码（原始字符串，非编码格式），可选 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that setting private_key_password encrypts the private key with AES-256-CBC, enumerates exact output field names, and explains the intended downstream use—behavior beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses clear labeled sections (parameters, output, follow-up) and every phrase provides necessary context. No filler or redundancy, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fully self-contained: it lists all output fields, explains parameter effects, and links to related operations. An agent can select and invoke this tool without needing external documentation.
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?
The schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, but the description adds the crucial encryption behavior for private_key_password (AES-256-CBC) that is absent from the schema. key_size is adequately described in both, though the description adds no new semantics for it.
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 explicitly states '生成 RSA 密钥对' (generate RSA key pair), naming the exact resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling key generation tools like generate_ecc and generate_sm2 by specifying RSA and identifying the output keys as PEM.
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?
Provides clear context by mapping the public key to rsa_encryption/rsa_verify and the private key to rsa_decryption/rsa_sign, telling the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative key generation tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct algorithm+operation pair (e.g., rsa_sign vs sm2_sign vs ml_dsa_sign), and descriptions are detailed. However, block_cipher and stream_cipher both perform symmetric encryption, and ecc_key_exchange and hybrid_kex overlap as key exchange, requiring careful reading to distinguish.
Naming is inconsistent across algorithm families: key generation mixes generate_ecc/generate_rsa with ml_dsa_keygen/ml_kem_keygen, and encryption mixes rsa_encryption/sm2_encryption with block_cipher/stream_cipher. Within each family (e.g., rsa_sign/rsa_verify, ml_dsa_sign/ml_dsa_verify), names are predictable, but the overall pattern is not uniform.
32 tools is far above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server. While every tool has a distinct function, the large surface makes the set heavy and harder to navigate, especially with multiple algorithm families and niche utilities.
The toolkit gives comprehensive coverage: key generation, encryption/decryption, signing/verification for RSA, ECC, SM2, ML-DSA, ML-KEM, plus symmetric ciphers, hashing, and key exchange. Full workflows are supported with no dead ends, and even helper tools for debugging are included.