Open a sealed chamber blob using keys only, without license or clock verification. Unlock JSON data sealed with φ-split keyword shares for benefit checks.
Open a sealed chamber blob. Keys only — no license, no clock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sealed | Yes | Sealed blob from chamber_cloak |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one meaningful trait — this operation relies on keys and does not require license or clock checks — but it does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, validation steps, or whether the operation is read-only. This is minimal transparency.
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 extremely compact: one opening sentence naming the operation and one short clause giving the key requirement. Every phrase earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the agent gets back and what the tool does beyond the single input. It does not describe the return value, error conditions, or whether the operation mutates anything. The 1-parameter schema reduces complexity, but the missing behavioral and output context makes this incomplete.
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%, and the only parameter, 'sealed', is already described as 'Sealed blob from chamber_cloak.' The description mostly restates the operation rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 names a specific action and resource: 'Open a sealed chamber blob.' It also links the input to chamber_cloak, which helps distinguish this tool from the sibling chamber_* tools. It loses a point because it never says what 'open' concretely produces or what state change, if any, occurs.
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 phrase 'Sealed blob from chamber_cloak' implies this tool is meant to be used on output created by chamber_cloak, and 'Keys only — no license, no clock' gives a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.