technocore_open_sealed

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it opens a line and recovers results, but does not mention side effects (e.g., is the line consumed, destroyed, or marked read), authentication requirements, or whether the operation is destructive. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool involving cryptographic material.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and outcome. It conveys essential purpose without fluff. However, it could be organized with separate parameter or behavioral notes; still, for its purpose it is appropriately concise.

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 cryptographic context and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the expected return format, possible failures, and any preconditions. It mentions 'recovering the room name and room key' but not how the result is returned, what to do if the line is already opened, or whether an identity is required. The description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

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?

There is a single required parameter 'line', and the schema provides no description (0% coverage). The description references a 'mailbox line' indirectly but does not explain its format, where it comes from, or how it relates to the 'sealed' concept. An agent cannot be sure what string value to pass (identifier, ciphertext, or some encoded blob).

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 ('Open') and resource ('e2e1 mailbox line addressed to this identity') and clarifies the outcome ('recovering the room name and room key'). This distinguishes it from siblings like decrypt_line or read_room, which handle different operations. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative tools. It implies the tool is used when there is a sealed mailbox line for this identity, but it does not state prerequisites, failure conditions, or why one might choose this over a sibling. Practical usage is left inferred.

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