fflKeygen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses that it generates two files, the naming convention, the public/private key roles, and the output format (returncode and output). This is comprehensive for a simple file-generation 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?

The description is well-structured with a summary, file output details, usage examples, and parameter/return documentation. It is concise (no wasted words) and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and a clear output, the description covers all necessary information: what it does, how to use it, what files are created, and how they integrate with sibling tools. The agent can correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 single parameter 'name' is explained as the base name for generated files, with a default behavior (ffl assigns a name). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only specifies type and default.

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 it generates an RSA keypair for passwordless pubkey authentication, specifies the output files (.fflpub and .fflkey), and explains how the keys are used with sibling tools (fflShareFile, fflDownload), distinguishing its purpose.

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 explicit examples of when to use the tool (generating keys for passwordless auth) and shows how the output keys are used with other tools, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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