Fflkeygen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the write side effect (two files created), the security constraint (private key must be kept secret), and which key is used at which stage. It omits where the files are written and whether an existing key with the same name is overwritten — meaningful gaps for a keygen 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact file listing, then two one-line workflow examples. Every line carries information the agent needs; nothing is restated from the schema.

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 return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers the cross-tool workflow that makes this tool usable. It falls short only on operational details — output directory and overwrite behavior — which matter for a tool that writes key material.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by spelling out the derived filenames (<name>.fflpub and <name>.fflkey), which tells the agent exactly how the single 'name' argument propagates. It does not clarify the default naming when name is null.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate an RSA keypair') plus the purpose ('passwordless pubkey authentication'), and no sibling tool does anything similar, so the boundary is unambiguous. The two-sentence breakdown of what files are produced makes the operation's effect concrete.

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 does not just say when to use it — it shows the full workflow: hand the .fflpub to fflShareFile via recipientAuth='pubkey' and the .fflkey to fflDownload. Naming the sibling tools and the exact parameters that consume the output leaves nothing to inference.

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