crypto_hmac

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention what the output format is, whether the key must be in a specific encoding, or any side effects. The phrase 'Generate HMAC' is vague and lacks specifics about the operation's characteristics.

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 with three sentences, but the first sentence ('Menu ID: hmac.') is unnecessary and could be removed. The core purpose and a pointer to more info are present, but the inclusion of an internal identifier 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 (5 required params, no output schema, no annotations, many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter values, output structure, or how it differs from similar crypto tools. The deferral to describe_tool acknowledges incompleteness.

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 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only hints at the 'algorithm' parameter by listing hash functions, but provides no explanation for 'text', 'key', 'keyFormat', or 'outputFormat'. This adds minimal semantic 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 tool generates HMAC and lists supported algorithms, making the purpose identifiable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like crypto_hash, which also produce hash outputs. The mention of 'Menu ID: hmac' adds minor noise but does not hinder clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., crypto_hash, crypto_md5). The description only suggests using describe_tool for full guidance, which shifts responsibility. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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