chamber_cloak

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the license requirement, which is a key operational constraint, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is destructive or read-only, what the return value looks like, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the core action and resource. It includes the algorithm and the license requirement without unnecessary words. It is concise and efficiently structured, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a critical constraint (license), but it omits what the tool returns, any side effects, and the meaning of 'seal' in this domain. Given the sibling set, an agent might infer the output, but the description alone is not fully complete for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (data as a string, is_json as a boolean). The description's mention of 'JSON/text' loosely aligns with the data parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Since the schema is thorough, a baseline of 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 clearly states the action (Seal) and the target resource (JSON/text), and specifies the algorithm (φ-split + AES-256-GCM). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like chamber_open (likely unsealing) and chamber_status/info (likely metadata). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it's not a 5.

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 prerequisite ('Requires live license') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any conditions or exclusions. There is no mention of when sealing is appropriate or when to prefer another tool, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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