check_strength

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states read-only, stateless, idempotent behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, and data privacy. This is comprehensive and beyond typical.

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 well-structured with headings but contains redundancy (e.g., 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' overlap). It is longer than necessary, which slightly reduces conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers authentication, rate limits, idempotency, and error handling. However, the 'When to use' section is too generic, and the parameter descriptions are weak, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section provides basic info ('The password to analyze or process') but lacks detail—e.g., the api_key's purpose is unclear despite optionality. The descriptions add minimal value over the schema's type names.

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 'Analyze password strength with detailed scoring', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (estimate_crack_time, generate_password, hash_password) as its focus is on strength analysis, not generation or time estimation.

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 includes 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing context. However, the when-to-use guidance ('structured analysis or classification') is generic and does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or specify prerequisites. Lacks mention of alternatives.

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