crypto_password_generator

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: uses crypto.getRandomValues, runs locally (read-only, non-destructive), contacts no external service, is rate-limited (30/min, 200/hr, 1000/day), and returns each password with length and estimated entropy. This fully informs behavior beyond annotations.

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 appropriately sized with a clear structure: purpose, features, usage guidelines, safety, return info. Every sentence provides value; no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and guides agent decision-making efficiently.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, many interdependent options) and the existence of an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, behavior, safety, rate limits, and return format. No gaps identified.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds semantic value by explaining interactions: customCharset overrides include* options, noRepeating constraint, pronounceable mode limitations. This helps agents understand parameter dependencies without repeating schema details.

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 is a random password generator that generates cryptographically random passwords from configurable character classes, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (passphrase for word-based, pin for numeric-only). The verb 'Generate' and resource 'cryptographically random passwords' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('dense mixed-character passwords') and when to use alternatives ('crypto_password_generator_passphrase' for memorable word-based, 'crypto_password_generator_pin' for numeric-only). Also notes randomness source and local execution, providing clear context.

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