mdk_to_mnemonic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, error conditions, or output format. For a tool that handles cryptographic keys, this lack of detail on security or behavior 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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. No unnecessary words or structure detract from the clarity.

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 cryptographic key conversion and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a mnemonic is, the security implications, or the format of the output. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (mdk, network, itemsPerPage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining why 'itemsPerPage' is included in a conversion tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: converting a master derivation key to a mnemonic. It specifies the verb 'convert' and the resource 'master derivation key', making the action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mnemonic_to_secret_key' or 'secret_key_to_mnemonic', which handle related but different conversions.

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, such as needing a valid MDK, or compare it to sibling tools like 'mnemonic_from_seed' or 'seed_from_mnemonic' that might be relevant in similar contexts. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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