soma_nonce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: the nonce is single-use ('одноразовый') and it functions as proof of key ownership. It does not state the nonce's lifetime, whether it is bound to the caller's identity, or what happens if it is reused or expires, which matters for a security-primitive tool.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then its purpose; there is no filler. The colon construction is slightly elliptical but readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so the returned nonce need not be explained, and the tool is simple with a single parameter. However, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition still leaves the agent without the lifecycle details (expiry, next step) needed to use the nonce correctly in the registration flow.

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 must compensate for the undocumented 'agent' parameter, and it does not. It never clarifies whether 'agent' is an identifier, a public key, or a name, leaving the sole input ambiguous.

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 names a specific resource (a one-time nonce) and its role (proof of key ownership during external-agent registration), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related siblings soma_register, soma_claim, or soma_verify, so an agent must infer the sequencing.

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 phrase 'for registering an external agent' implies the context in which this tool is called, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of how the nonce relates to soma_register or soma_claim. Usage is only implied.

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