crypto_argon2

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool generates hashes but does not address key aspects such as whether the tool writes data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or handles sensitive data securely. The mention of 'verification' within the same description could mislead about separate functionality.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes redundant information like 'Menu ID: argon2'. The pointer to describe_tool adds length without immediate utility. It could be more concise.

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 complexity of password hashing, 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles, security implications, output format, or how this tool relates to other crypto tools. The user would need external documentation.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'customizable parameters' and lists variant types, but does not explain the meaning, units, or valid ranges for memory, time, threads, or password. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'secure Argon2 password hashes', with specific mention of variants (Argon2i, Argon2id) and verification support. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_argon2_verify and other hash generators.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'with verification' but does not clarify that verification is a separate tool (crypto_argon2_verify). The instruction to use describe_tool indicates that critical usage context is not provided directly.

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