nostr_encode

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: local-only execution and prohibition of nsec encoding. However, it lacks details about error handling, return format, or input validation beyond what the schema provides. Without annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, scope, and constraints. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simplicity and the schema's richness, the description covers the core purpose and constraints. The output format is implied by 'bech32 form', but a brief mention of the return value (e.g., 'returns a bech32-encoded string') would complete the picture.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the already detailed input schema (100% coverage). It repeats some parameter constraints (e.g., type values) but does not provide additional semantic guidance for using parameters together.

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 ('Encode' a raw NIP-19 record) and the output format ('bech32 form'). It explicitly lists supported types (npub, note, nevent, naddr, nprofile), differentiating it from sibling tools like nostr_decode.

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 usage context: it's a local-only operation with no network call, and explicitly warns against using nsec encoding. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context implies this tool is for encoding public data, and private keys should be handled separately.

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