generate_mnemonic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (generating mnemonic and deriving address) but lacks details about security implications (e.g., whether the mnemonic is displayed/stored), rate limits, or error conditions. It doesn't contradict annotations since none exist, but could provide more behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and usage. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's complexity (cryptographic wallet generation) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain return values, security considerations, or potential side effects. For a wallet creation tool, more context about output format and safety would be beneficial.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (wordCount and network). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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 specific action ('Generate a new BIP39 mnemonic phrase') and the resource ('derive the corresponding Kaspa wallet address'), with explicit purpose ('create a new wallet'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_balance or send_kaspa by focusing on wallet creation rather than querying or transacting.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this to create a new wallet'), which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools that query existing data or send transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives for similar functions.

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