crypto_bcrypt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions customizable cost factors but does not specify valid ranges, default behavior, error handling, or return format. The claim of 'verify bcrypt hashes' may overlap with a sibling tool, causing confusion.

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 but contains redundancy (Menu ID and name) and a directive to use describe_tool. It is front-loaded but could be more efficient by removing 'Bcrypt Generator' repetition and integrating the describe_tool note more concisely.

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?

For a tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks behavioral details and use-case context. It fails to explain output structure, security considerations, or parameter constraints, making it insufficient for correct use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'password' and 'cost factor' but adds no constraints, valid ranges, or formatting details. The schema lists two required parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description adds only minimal context.

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 that the tool generates bcrypt password hashes with customizable cost factors, and mentions verification and analysis. However, the name 'crypto_bcrypt' and the existence of a sibling 'crypto_bcrypt_verify' create ambiguity about whether this tool is primarily for generation or also handles verification.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references using describe_tool for full guidance, which shifts responsibility. No explicit comparisons to sibling tools like crypto_bcrypt_verify or other hash generators.

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