Kavra Siegel — Qualified eIDAS Timestamping

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 server-side hash computation, max 1 MB size limit, and use of RFC 3161 via SIGNIUS/IDnow. However, it does not cover authentication needs, error behavior, or whether the operation is safe/reversible.

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 two sentences (30 words), front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds relevant information. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has 3 parameters including an enum and an object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview but lacks details on the 'tier' parameter's semantics. Additionally, the distinction from sibling tools could be more explicit.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description adds value for content_b64 (explaining base64 encoding and size limit) but does not explain the 'tier' enum values or the 'metadata' object. This partially compensates for schema gaps but leaves important parameters undocumented.

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 creates a qualified eIDAS timestamp for base64-encoded content, specifying max size, server-side hash computation, and standard used. This distinguishes it from sibling tool stamp_hash, which likely operates on pre-computed hashes.

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 this tool is for base64 content, contrasting with stamp_hash which likely takes a hash. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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 the description carries full burden. It discloses the strict standard (eIDAS, RFC 3161) and trust service provider, but does not mention authentication requirements, mutation side effects, or what happens to the timestamp (returned vs stored). This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 front-loaded sentences: the first states the core action and resource, the second provides standards and provider context. No extraneous information; every phrase earns its place.

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 output schema, the description should hint at return value or side effects, but it does not. It provides good context on standards and providers but lacks usage guidance against siblings and complete behavioral info. Parameter schema is well-covered, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 the input schema already describes all parameters (sha256_hex, tier, metadata). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not explain tier options or metadata behavior, but schema covers them adequately.

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 creates a qualified eIDAS timestamp for a SHA-256 hash, explicitly naming the standard (RFC 3161) and provider. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the input is a hash, not content, and from verify_tool by being creation-oriented.

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 (when you have a SHA-256 hash and need an eIDAS timestamp) and contrasts with siblings (stamp_content for direct content, verify_token for verification). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative guidance.

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. The description only says 'verifies' without explaining what verification entails (e.g., validity checks, error cases). No behavioral traits disclosed.

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, no wasted words. Efficient but lacks detail that could justify a higher score.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only one param, the description should provide what the tool returns, error behavior, and usage context. It does not.

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% and already describes the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning 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 the tool verifies a stamp token using its UUID. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like stamp_content and stamp_hash.

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. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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