encode_signed

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 discloses that the envelope is self-attested, returns specific tiers, and can be dropped into any transport. However, it omits potential failure modes, size limits, or auth requirements, which are relevant for a signing 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 four sentences, front-loading the purpose, then adding usage and return info. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 has one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main output characteristics (self-contained string, tiers). It lacks error handling or edge-case details, but for a simple wrap tool, it is fairly complete.

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 0% for the single parameter 'content'. The description mentions 'wrap content' but provides no guidance on expected format, length, or constraints. Since the schema does not describe the parameter, the description should have compensated but barely does.

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 wraps content as a signed synpareia envelope, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like decode_signed and make_claim. However, jargon like 'Tier 4' and 'synpareia' may reduce clarity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 explains when to use the tool—producing a portable signed envelope for any transport—and hints at an alternative (make_claim for witness upgrade). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection among siblings.

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