generate_aps_txt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates a signed file and mentions key components (terms, revocation endpoint, MCP upgrade path). However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., file creation or storage), the signing process, or the output format. Behavioral traits are partially covered but not comprehensively.

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 consists of two succinct sentences that convey the core purpose and key features. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately clarifies with a familiar concept (robots.txt). No extraneous information is present.

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 (9 parameters, cryptographic signing) and the absence of an output schema, the description fails to explain what the generated file contains, how it is returned, or the signing process. Critical details about key requirements (both public and private keys) are implied but not explicitly stated. The description leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output and usage flow.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, including examples and enum values. The description adds only the robots.txt analogy and general context, not specific parameter details. Since schema coverage is high, the description's incremental contribution is limited, warranting a baseline score.

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 verb (Generate), resource (signed aps.txt file), and context (site-wide governance), using an effective analogy to robots.txt. This distinguishes it from many sibling aps-related tools that focus on signing, verification, or other aspects.

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 a helpful analogy but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, common scenarios, or when not to use it. The sibling list contains many aps tools, but no comparative context is given.

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