generate_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Generate' without mentioning side effects such as whether the keypair is persisted, whether the private key is displayed once, or any security implications. The agent lacks information about what happens after generation.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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?

While the tool is simple with no parameters, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., whether it returns the keypair, stores it, or only provides a reference). Without this, the agent cannot anticipate the tool's output or side effects. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'what happens next,' leaving a notable gap.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools since there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Generate') and a precise resource ('Ed25519 keypair') with a clear purpose ('for agent identity'). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like rotate_key and verify_rotation_chain, which handle key lifecycle operations rather than initial generation.

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 implies usage context through 'for agent identity,' suggesting this is for creating a new identity keypair. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., rotate_key for rotating an existing key) or provide any exclusions. Usage guidance remains implicit.

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