owp_compute_key_id

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Compute', which restates the name and gives no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether it is deterministic, pure, or has any error conditions). This is a minimal disclosure for a computation tool.

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 concise sentence followed by a compact Args block with no verbal filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides the parameter specification, making it easy to scan.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input format and what the tool computes. It omits potential edge cases (e.g., invalid key handling), but such details are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 description provides crucial parameter details beyond the schema: it specifies the exact encoding ('unpadded base64url') and expected length ('43 characters') for public_key_b64url. This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Compute') and clearly identifies the resource (OpenWorkProof key_id) and the input (Ed25519 public key), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like owp_sign_payload or owp_compute_digest by naming the exact derivation target.

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 usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: it computes a key_id from a public key, and no alternative tools are mentioned. While the purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate use, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar ones.

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