crypto_generate_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the token is 'cryptographically secure' and returns a hex string, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or performance characteristics.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no unnecessary information.

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 simple parameter and output schema, the description covers essential aspects like output format and parameter behavior, but could mention error cases or security context.

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 description explains that 'length is the number of random bytes (output will be 2× as long in hex)' and specifies the default (32 bytes → 64-char hex), adding significant meaning beyond the schema which lacks parameter descriptions.

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 'Generate a cryptographically secure random token' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_random_bytes and crypto_uuid4 by emphasizing cryptographic security and hex string output.

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 use for secure random token generation but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like crypto_random_bytes or crypto_uuid4, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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