mnemonic_to_secret_key

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 describe what a 'secret key' entails (e.g., format, security implications, whether it's reversible), network effects, or error conditions. For a cryptographic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward conversion tool and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 conversion and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format (e.g., what a 'secret key' looks like), error handling, or security considerations. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective 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 (mnemonic, network, itemsPerPage). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as mnemonic format requirements or why itemsPerPage is included. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional 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 'Convert a mnemonic to a secret key' clearly states the verb (convert) and resources (mnemonic to secret key), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'secret_key_to_mnemonic' or 'mdk_to_mnemonic', which perform related but inverse operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific conversion tool.

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, typical use cases, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'secret_key_to_mnemonic' (which does the reverse conversion) or 'seed_from_mnemonic' (which might be related). Without this context, an 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.