hello_aigent_create_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It does this thoroughly: mints an Ed25519 signing keypair, creates a per-feed publisher token that is shown only once, returns the discovery file, and requires the admin token. This goes well beyond basic 'create' semantics and alerts the agent to important operational details.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information (purpose, side effects, critical token warning). There is no redundancy or filler. It is concise and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key non-obvious aspects: the one-time token, admin token requirement, and returned discovery file. It could mention what happens after creation (e.g., feed appears in list_feeds) or how to share the discovery file, but it is complete enough for the primary use case.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema; it focuses on high-level behavior (token, keypair, discovery file). Since the schema already explains each parameter, the description does not need to supplement it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Hello Aigent feed', with a parenthetical explaining what a feed is. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning the unique side effects (minting keypair, returning discovery file). This clearly states what the tool does and is not a tautology.

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 the tool is for creating a feed and notes it requires the admin token, which hints at when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools (e.g., list_feeds for viewing existing feeds). Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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