generate_governance_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cryptographically signed' and 'includes terms, revocation policy, and content hash', but does not disclose what happens with the private key, the output format, potential side effects, or failure modes. This is insufficient for a tool that handles cryptographic keys.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, though the second sentence is slightly vague. It communicates essential information efficiently.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too brief. It does not explain return values, how the governance block is structured, how the policy parameters relate to each other, or any prerequisites. The agent would lack context to invoke this correctly.

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 only 30%, leaving the 7 enum/other parameters (caching, training, inference, derivative, redistribution, license_url, terms_version) unexplained in both schema and description. The description's mention of 'terms, revocation policy, and content hash' adds high-level context but does not map to specific parameters or clarify their meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') with a clear resource ('cryptographically signed governance block') and a distinct purpose ('for embedding in HTML pages'). It differentiates from siblings like 'create_chained_governance_block' and 'verify_governance_block' by emphasizing HTML embedding and cryptographic signing.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or related tools like 'create_chained_governance_block' or 'parse_governance_block_html'. The context is only implied by the purpose, not clarified.

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