crypto_blake3

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions output length up to 1024 bytes and three modes, but fails to state safe/read-only nature, error behaviors, or prerequisites. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a cryptographic tool.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey core purpose and a reference to external guidance. While not highly structured, it avoids extraneous information and is front-loaded with key intent.

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 four required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the role of each parameter or specify expected behaviors, relying on an external describe_tool instruction. A standalone description should provide more context.

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 should compensate. It mentions modes (hash, MAC, key-derivation) and output length, but does not explicitly map these to the four required parameters (text, encoding, mode, length). This leaves the agent with limited guidance on parameter meaning.

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 it generates BLAKE3 hashes and lists specific use cases (standard hash, keyed MAC, key-derivation). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crypto_blake2 or crypto_sha3_generator, though the name provides some distinction.

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 implies usage for generating BLAKE3 hashes and mentions using describe_tool for full guidance. However, it provides no when-not-to-use advice or explicit alternatives, leaving usage guidance somewhat vague.

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