peck_fleet_spawn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the private key is generated locally and never leaves the host, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also discloses failure conditions (account exists, name is 'default'). However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, what exactly happens on failure, or the return format, but these are less critical given the explicit conditions.

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, with three sentences. The first sentence states the action and key behavior (local generation), the second covers failure conditions, and the third gives a follow-up instruction. It is well-structured and front-loads the most important info. A minor issue: the third sentence on funding is more of a usage guideline than core behavior, but it does not bloat the description.

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 has one parameter, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the description provides what an agent needs: purpose, key behavioral guarantee (key never leaves host), failure conditions, and a critical post-requisite (funding). The only missing piece is the exact return format (e.g., the address), but that may be standard for such tools and is not critical for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents the account parameter with clear constraints (lowercase, 3-32 chars, allowed characters) and examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds context that the account name is used as the keychain key, which is useful but not strictly necessary. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds marginal value.

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: spawn a new BRC-100 identity and persist it in the OS keychain. The verb 'spawn' and resource 'BRC-100 identity' are specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like peck_register_identity or peck_set_identity, though the local key generation and keychain persistence hint at a distinct function.

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 on when to use it: to create a new identity that never leaves the host. It also warns against using it if the account already exists or if the name is 'default'. It mentions a follow-up step (funding via peck_send_payment) but does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus alternatives like peck_register_identity, though the local key generation is a distinguishing factor.

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