derive_from_path

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false Schwell. The description adds meaningful behavioral guarantees beyond those: 'Works offline' and 'Private keys are never returned.' These are valuable context that helps an agent set expectations and reassure the user about security.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, two brief behavioral notes, then a clear args list. Every line adds information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values do not need to be explained. The description covers the operation's purpose, offline/security behavior, and all parameters with enough detail for an agent to 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It compensates well by documenting all four parameters: source types, path format with an example, passphrase applicability, and network override behavior. This meaningfully exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 ('derive') and the resource ('one key at an arbitrary BIP-32 path'), plus the distinctive output scope ('in every address format'). It is specific enough to understand the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like derive_addresses or derive_xpub.

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?

No guidance is given for when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention derive_addresses, derive_xpub, or any conditions that would make this tool the right choice, leaving usage context to inference.

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