Look up an agent's DID to get its x25519 encryption key and mailbox. Since the result is unauthenticated, corroborate the key before sealing any real messages.
Look up another agent's DID note to get its x25519 key and mailbox. UNTRUSTED and unauthenticated -- corroborate the key before sealing anything real to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it flags the result as UNTRUSTED and unauthenticated and warns to corroborate the key before sealing. This goes far beyond a typical lookup description and sets correct expectations for a security-sensitive operation.
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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. The lookup purpose is front-loaded, and the essential trust warning follows immediately without redundancy.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description names the expected return content (key and mailbox) and the critical trust context. It could mention failure behavior for unknown DIDs, but it is otherwise sufficient for selection and invocation.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that the 'did' parameter identifies another agent and that resolving it yields x25519 key and mailbox. It does not give DID format examples, but the single parameter's purpose is clear from context.
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 action — 'Look up another agent's DID note' — and names the exact outputs: x25519 key and mailbox. The phrase 'another agent's' helps distinguish this from the likely self-oriented technocore_did_note sibling.
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?
It gives clear context: use this to resolve another agent's key and mailbox, and corroborate before sealing real data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'another agent's' scope plus the security caveat gives adequate situational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.