mnemonic_from_seed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Generate a mnemonic from a seed' but fails to describe what the tool actually does: e.g., whether it's deterministic, what mnemonic standard is used (BIP-39?), if it involves cryptographic hashing, what the output format is (word list?), or any side effects like network calls. For a cryptographic tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 front-loaded and directly states the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the basic operation.

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 a cryptographic key derivation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the mnemonic format, security implications, or what the tool returns (e.g., a phrase string or structured data). Siblings like 'mdk_to_mnemonic' suggest this is part of a key management suite, but the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and correct use.

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 fully documents all three parameters (seed, network, itemsPerPage). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the relationship between seed and mnemonic, why network matters, or what 'itemsPerPage' is for (seemingly irrelevant for a generation tool). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 'Generate a mnemonic from a seed' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'mnemonic_from_seed'. It specifies the verb 'generate' and resource 'mnemonic', but lacks specificity about what a mnemonic is (e.g., a human-readable phrase for cryptographic keys) or its purpose in the Algorand context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mdk_to_mnemonic' or 'secret_key_to_mnemonic' that also handle mnemonic generation.

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 seed in hex format), use cases (e.g., key derivation, wallet setup), or comparisons to siblings like 'seed_from_mnemonic' (the inverse operation). Without any context, an agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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