createKeypair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a keypair but doesn't describe what that entails: whether it returns both public and private keys, stores them somewhere, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a security-sensitive operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter, and every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 complexity of key generation (a security-sensitive operation) and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a keypair includes, how keys are returned, security implications, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the result.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'format' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none in 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 action ('Generate') and resource ('new Nostr keypair'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createNote' or 'createProfile' by focusing on cryptographic key generation rather than content creation. However, it doesn't specify what a Nostr keypair consists of (public/private keys), which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a keypair for other operations), compare to sibling tools like 'signNote' (which might require a keypair), or indicate typical use cases (e.g., user onboarding). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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