One-shot private compute

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait beyond annotations: it runs without showing intermediates and 'optionally reveales only the final answer.' This materially informs the agent about privacy semantics. It does not cover edge cases like failure or repeated-call behavior, but annotations already handle idempotency and mutation hints, so the extra description is valuable and non-contradictory.

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 short sentences with no filler. The most important choice ('main agent tool') and routing ('Prefer this over encrypt/compute/decrypt') come early, and each clause adds information.

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 4-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the core privacy contract and final-output behavior. It doesn't specify what happens when reveal is false, but the overall selection guidance is complete enough for an agent; a bit more return-format detail would make it fully complete.

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 schema already covers all four parameters at 100% described. The description restates the op list and adds that values are sealed before compute, which is a mild lifecycle detail, but it does not add meaningfully beyond the schema descriptions for domain or reveal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific verb ('seals inputs, runs the op') and a clear resource (one-shot private FHE compute). It also distinguishes itself as 'the main agent tool' and explicitly prefers it over encrypt/compute/decrypt, making its identity clear against siblings.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer this over encrypt/compute/decrypt', which gives clear routing guidance toward this tool among alternatives. It lacks a stated condition for when the alternative pipeline would be necessary (e.g., when intermediate ciphertexts are needed), so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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