piqrypt_stamp_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors (signing with Ed25519, linking to previous event in hash chain, AISS v2.0) and compliance context. However, it omits operational details such as persistence, error handling, or authorization requirements, leaving gaps for a security-critical tool.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and packs cryptographic details and compliance context efficiently. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or verbosity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not clarify what the function returns (e.g., a hash or receipt). Given the complexity (cryptographic signing, chain linking), this omission reduces completeness. Also, nested objects are mentioned but not explained beyond the schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters, so the schema already provides sufficient meaning. The description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Create a tamper-proof cryptographic record of an agent decision.' It specifies the cryptographic actions (Ed25519 signing, hash chain linking) and distinguishes from sibling tools (export, search, verify) by being the creation 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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this after every significant agent action.' It also references compliance requirements (GDPR, EU AI Act, HIPAA, SEC/FINRA) to contextualize when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, so it is not a 5.

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