create_account

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 this is a creation operation but provides no information about what 'create' entails - whether this generates keys, stores credentials, requires authentication, has side effects, or what the expected output looks like. For a tool that presumably creates cryptographic assets, this 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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 tool that creates cryptographic accounts with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets created (keys, addresses, mnemonics?), whether credentials are stored, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of account creation in a blockchain context, this leaves critical gaps.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new Algorand account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'wallet_add_account' or 'rekey_account' that might also involve account creation or modification.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wallet_add_account' or 'rekey_account'. The description gives no context about prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what alternatives exist for similar functionality.

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