Kavra Siegel — Qualified eIDAS Timestamping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: server-side hash computation, RFC 3161 compliance, and size limit. It does not cover authentication or error cases, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence adds relevant information, but the description could be better structured (e.g., separate sections for constraints and behavior).

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?

Covers the main action and important constraints but lacks details on return values (no output schema) and does not explain the 'tier' and 'metadata' parameters. Adequate but not fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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 low (33%); only 'content_b64' has a description in the schema, and the description merely restates that. 'tier' and 'metadata' are not explained, and the description does not add any additional 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 it creates a qualified eIDAS timestamp for base64-encoded content, specifying max size and server-side hashing. It distinguishes from sibling 'stamp_hash' by implying this tool handles content directly and hashes server-side, though not explicitly.

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 important constraints (max 1 MB, base64 input) and mentions the timestamp standard (RFC 3161). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'stamp_hash' or 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creation of a timestamp but does not disclose consequences (e.g., costs, rate limits, what happens if the hash is already stamped). The phrase 'qualifizierten eIDAS-Zeitstempel' implies compliance, but no behavioral details beyond that.

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 extremely concise (2 sentences) and front-loaded with the key action ('Erzeugt...'). No unnecessary words or fluff.

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 could explain the return value (e.g., the timestamp token or confirmation ID). For a tool with 3 parameters and complete schema coverage, it is somewhat incomplete missing output behavior. The presence of nested objects (metadata) is not elaborated.

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 the schema already documents all 3 parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it references only the hash input). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no further value.

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, specifying the standard (RFC 3161) and provider (SIGNIUS/IDnow). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kavra_siegel_stamp_content (for content) and kavra_siegel_verify_token (for verification).

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 its siblings or alternatives. There is no explicit 'when-not' or condition for usage. The description assumes the agent knows when a hash-based timestamp is appropriate.

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 carries the full burden but only says 'verifies' – a tautology of the name. No details on what verification entails (e.g., success/failure, side effects) are given.

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 one short sentence, which is concise, but it does not add much value beyond stating the basic purpose. It is not verbose, but also not particularly 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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully. It should at least indicate the type of result (e.g., boolean, token object).

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 description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'kavra_siegel_stamp_content' or 'kavra_siegel_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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or expected outcomes.

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