crypto_hmac_verify

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

With no annotations, the description adds key behavioral detail: constant-time comparison to prevent timing attacks. It also states the return type. However, it does not cover error handling or state modification, though the tool is a simple verification function.

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 concise sentences: first describes the core operation, second adds a critical security note. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 output schema exists (boolean return), the description covers the essential behavior and security aspect. It misses details on the algorithm parameter, but overall is fairly complete for a simple 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 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description does not describe individual parameters beyond their names, which are self-explanatory for data, secret, and signature, but the optional algorithm parameter's expected values or default behavior are not clarified. Baseline for 0% coverage requires compensation, which is not provided.

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 verifies an HMAC signature against data and a secret key, returning a boolean. This distinguishes it from siblings like crypto_hmac_sign (which creates signatures) by specifying the action and resource.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The name and description imply it is for verification, contrasting with crypto_hmac_sign for signing, but lacks explicit when-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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