crypto_blake2

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 notes that hashes are generated from text or files, but does not specify side effects, required permissions, output format, error conditions, or the fact that it only generates hashes (no verification). The description lacks sufficient behavioral context.

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 three sentences, with the first sentence 'Menu ID: blake2' being unnecessary for agent tool selection. The core information is front-loaded, but the extra clutter 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 complexity (cryptographic hash with multiple variants, key support, encoding) and lack of schema descriptions or output schema, the description does not cover acceptable variant strings, encoding formats, how to specify file input, or output details. It relies on an external describe_tool, making it incomplete for agent 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% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description mentions 'text or files' and variant names, but does not explain the 'encoding', 'variant' values, or 'key' parameter meaning. For 4 required params with no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond listing parameter 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 the verb 'Generate', the resource 'cryptographic hashes', and specifies the exact variants (BLAKE2b-512, BLAKE2b-256, BLAKE2s-256) and input types (text or files). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_sha3_generator or crypto_blake3.

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 mentions performance context ('Faster than SHA-2 while matching SHA-3 security strength'), which helps compare to other hash tools, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The reference to describe_tool suggests more guidance exists externally.

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