aps_capability_mint_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions signing and echoing but does not cover side effects (e.g., whether the receipt is stored, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens to input data). Critical aspects like the use of private key for signing are implied but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a keyword list. The first sentence front-loads the tool's identity and version, followed by a clear statement of action. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and numerous sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format (the receipt), the signing mechanism, or how the 'request' structure integrates. An agent would lack crucial context for correct invocation.

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?

The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by mentioning 'challenge_hash' and 'delegation_chain_root', which relate to the 'request' parameter. However, with only 33% schema coverage, it does not elaborate on parameters like 'policy_digest', 'deny_reason', or the gateway keys. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 it is a gateway receipt that signs a permit or deny over a challenge hash and echoes a delegation chain root. While it uses technical abbreviations (M3, M2), it effectively conveys the core action of minting a capability receipt, distinguishing it from sibling tools like evaluate_authority or issue_challenge.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, successors, or context like 'use after evaluation' or 'before signing effect'. The agent must infer its place from the 'M3' label and sibling names.

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