crypto_password_strength

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

Discloses analysis methods but does not mention security implications like whether passwords are transmitted/stored, or if processing is client-side. With no annotations, the description should provide more 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 short but contains redundant 'Menu ID' and title line. The core information is in the second sentence, but the reference to describe_tool adds some structure. Could be more efficient.

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?

For a complex tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains what analysis is performed but not the parameter semantics or expected output, relying on external guidance.

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?

No description of parameters. Three required parameters (password, username, commonWords) are left unexplained, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema 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 tool does password strength analysis with specific techniques like entropy calculation and zxcvbn-style feedback. It distinguishes from siblings by name and implicitly from bulk version, but does not explicitly contrast with crypto_password_strength_bulk.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like the bulk version or other password tools. It directs to describe_tool for full guidance, but the description itself lacks context on appropriate usage.

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