seed_from_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. The description only states the basic action without any details on what the tool does beyond the transformation (e.g., output format, cryptographic properties, side effects, error conditions, or network implications). For a tool that likely involves cryptographic operations, this lack of transparency is significant.

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 is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous information is included, making it highly concise.

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 tool's complexity (cryptographic seed generation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'seed' is in this context, the output format, any security considerations, or how the network parameter affects the result. For a tool with potential security implications, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 documents all three parameters (mnemonic, network, itemsPerPage) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between mnemonic and seed or why network matters. 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 'Generate a seed from a mnemonic' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'seed_from_mnemonic'. It specifies the verb 'generate' and resource 'seed', but lacks any differentiation from sibling tools like 'mnemonic_from_seed' or 'mnemonic_to_secret_key', which also deal with mnemonic/seed conversions. The purpose is clear at a basic level but fails to distinguish this tool's specific role.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'mnemonic_from_seed' (which performs the inverse operation). Without any usage instructions, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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