describeAgentAuth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful safety context ('never returns private key', 'hex/npub only'), but does not mention output shape, possible errors, or side effects. This is adequate for a simple status check but not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential usage and safety notes. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a zero-parameter, simple status tool, the description provides purpose, format, security, and usage ordering. However, with no output schema, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool returns a boolean, string, or object, nor what happens if keys are not loaded. The implicit 'whether' covers this partially, but a small gap remains.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the description adds no param-specific detail, which is appropriate given there are no parameters to explain.

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 'Show' and names the resource 'Nostr keys', with explicit scope 'whether keys are loaded'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the hex/npub format and the 'never returns private key' safety qualifier, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use first in a session', giving clear timing/order context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the session-first guidance effectively differentiates it from tools like loadCredentials or getPublicKey.

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