get_public_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that behavior varies by key type (mnemonic vs private/secret), which is real behavioral information, but omits whether the key must be unlocked, what errors arise on bad derivation paths, and that this is a non-mutating read.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional usage rule immediately following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the return value (format of the public key, encoding) and failure modes when derivation params are mismatched with key type. The coverage of input branching is good, but the output and error surface are left blank.

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 100% and each deriving parameter already carries its own '(mnemonic only)' annotation, so the description largely restates the schema. It does add modest value by grouping the three derivation params under one conditional rule instead of leaving the agent to infer the grouping.

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 ('Get the derived public key for a key') and adds the qualifier 'derived' that separates it from a plain key fetch. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the closest sibling get_key, so the distinction must be inferred from the resource name alone.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance keyed to input type: mnemonic keys require curve/path/deriveType, while private/secret keys must omit those params. It does not say when to prefer this over get_key or list_keys, but the branch-by-key-type rule is genuinely actionable.

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