rsa_keygen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the output format (PEM) and the generation action, implying a safe, non-destructive operation. However, it does not describe the exact return structure (e.g., whether public and private keys are returned separately) or note any side effects or prerequisites beyond the trial limit hint.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The '[PRO — 3 trial uses left]' prefix adds non-functional context but does not obscure the meaning. Every other word serves the purpose and usage guidance, making it efficient.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter, the description provides clear purpose and usage context. It could specify the exact output structure (public/private key separation) since there is no output schema, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 'bits' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond saying the key is RSA or PEM, which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('RSA key pair') and specifies the output format (PEM). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like uuid or aes_encrypt, which are unrelated cryptographic or generation utilities.

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 names appropriate contexts: 'testing, dev environments, and learning,' which tells an agent when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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