ida_find_crypto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. It simply states the action ('Scan') without adding operational context beyond the name.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and includes clarifying examples. There is no filler or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple zero-parameter scan tool, but with no output schema, it does not explain what the scan returns or how to interpret results. The narrow scope and self-explanatory name partially compensate, but some behavioral context is still missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when no parameters exist, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('cryptographic algorithm indicators') with concrete examples (constants, XOR patterns, S-boxes), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ida_find_string_refs (strings) and ida_search (general search).

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 when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The tool's purpose is implicitly clear from its name and description, but there is no guidance on when to prefer it over other scan tools or any exclusions. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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