[sm2] 生成 SM2（SM2P256V1 / 国密曲线）密钥对。 【参数】
private_key_password：可选，私钥 PEM 加密保护 【输出】public_key_in_pem、private_key_in_pem、z_in_hex、point_x_in_hex、point_y_in_hex、public_key_in_hex、private_key_in_hex。 【后续操作】公钥用于 sm2_encryption / sm2_verify，私钥用于 sm2_decryption / sm2_sign。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the algorithm/curve, the optional private_key_password for PEM encryption, and enumerates all output fields. It does not mention side effects, but for a key generation operation this is sufficient.
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 structured with clear sections for parameters, outputs, and follow-up operations. Every line provides useful information without redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately concise and 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it lists all six outputs and explains how the keys will be used. Minor details like the exact PEM format are omitted, but the description covers the essential context for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the password protects the private key PEM ('私钥 PEM 加密保护'), which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic '加密密码'.
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 verb+resource: "生成 SM2（SM2P256V1 / 国密曲线）密钥对" (generate SM2 key pair). It names the specific curve, distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_ecc and generate_rsa.
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 includes a【后续操作】section explaining that the public key is used for sm2_encryption/sm2_verify and the private key for sm2_decryption/sm2_sign, providing downstream context. However, it does not explicitly state when to select this tool over alternatives like generate_ecc or generate_rsa; usage is implied rather than directly instructed.
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.