crypto_keccak_generator

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'generate hashes' but doesn't specify input format, output, or computational nature. The vague 'Keccak Hash Information' adds confusion. Critical details are deferred to describe_tool, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 a somewhat redundant 'Menu ID: keccak' line. The core action and context are placed early. It is reasonably concise with minimal waste.

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?

While 0 parameters reduce complexity, the description fails to explain how input is provided (schema allows any additional properties but description is silent). The Ethereum reference provides useful context, but the lack of input/output specification and reliance on external guidance makes it incomplete.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly adds no parameter info. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for no parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a generator of Keccak hashes (224, 256, 384, 512) and distinguishes it from the standardized SHA-3 by noting it is the 'pre-NIST algorithm' used in Ethereum. This effectively separates it from sibling tools like crypto_sha3_generator.

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 context (Ethereum usage) implying when to use Keccak vs. SHA-3, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It references using describe_tool for full guidance, which shifts responsibility but doesn't offer direct guidance.

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