technocore_encrypt_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses one valuable trait—refusal over the 4096-char cap—but does not say what happens on success (whether ciphertext is returned or stored), what permissions are needed, or whether the operation has side effects.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the cap constraint is a single purposeful clause.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the tool is mostly usable as-is, but the success behavior and return value are left unknown. A small note about what the tool returns or whether it writes to the room would make it 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 coverage is 50% since room_key is documented as '64 hex characters' but text is bare. The description adds the 'one line' framing and the 4096-char cap, which indirectly constrains text, but it never explicitly maps those semantics to the text 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 states a specific verb and resource ('encrypt one line for an E2E room') and adds a distinctive constraint ('4096-char cap'). It is easily distinguished from the sibling decrypt_line and room-read tools.

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 given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as decrypt_line or say_signed. The E2E room context is implicit, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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