Mint a Rhinogent identity

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

Given no annotations, the description explains that key generation is client-side and the tool issues a public signed card. It discloses the return format and action (minting). However, it does not detail potential side effects (e.g., overwriting duplicates) or authorization needs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outputs. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return values. It lacks error handling or prerequisite details, but these are partially mitigated by the clear purpose.

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 coverage is 0% (description does not explicitly describe the 'address' parameter), but the description adds context by stating 'newly-generated Base address', implying freshness and chain. This partially compensates, but the parameter's exact role and format could be clearer.

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 tool's purpose: onboarding a fresh self-custody agent and returning a signed identity card. It specifies the exact outputs (callsign, did:pkh, credential) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rhinogent_identity' by emphasizing 'mint' (create new) vs. potential retrieval.

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 implies usage for new agent onboarding ('fresh self-custody agent') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rhinogent_identity'. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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