magma_exec

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses signing with Ed25519 key, routing details, pipeline syntax, and envelope return. However, it omits safety warnings about potential destructive actions, auth requirements, or error behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant or filler text. Each sentence adds distinct value: parsing, routing, signing, pipeline support.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers execution flow, routing, signing, and output format (Magma envelope). It lacks prerequisites (e.g., governor key setup) and error handling details. Mostly complete for the complexity level.

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 has 100% coverage with basic descriptions. The description adds significant context: explains Magma instruction format (§VERB:AGENT:ACTION{payload}), pipeline syntax (>>), and routing logic based on verb. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 executes Magma instructions, explains the parsing of §VERB:AGENT:ACTION{payload}, routing to different executors (COMPUTE→Bedrock, etc.), signing with governor key, and returning a Magma envelope. It distinguishes from siblings like compute_route and magma_seal by covering the full execution lifecycle.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use magma_exec vs sibling tools like compute_route, ere_verify, or proxy_register. The description implies it's for full instruction execution but does not state alternatives or prerequisites.

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