Verify Key Pair

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of signing and verifying sample data, which is good. However, it does not mention side effects (none expected), safety, or that the operation is read-only and non-destructive. The description is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resources.

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?

The description lacks information about the output or return value (e.g., boolean or success/failure indication). Given no output schema, this is a gap. The process of signing sample data is mentioned but not elaborated. Overall, it is somewhat complete but missing key details for a verification 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'sample data' hint. The schema already explains the key formats and auto-detection, so the description provides marginal extra 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: verifying that a PKCS#8 private key matches an SPKI public key by signing and verifying sample data. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and identifies the resources (private key and public key), distinguishing it from siblings like 'certificate_matches_key' which deals with certificate-key matching.

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 implies usage when needing to check if a private and public key form a pair, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'certificate_matches_key', 'generate_key_pair'). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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