crypto_password_strength_bulk

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that analysis is local, deterministic, read-only, non-destructive, never stored, and passwords are never logged. It also mentions rate limiting (30 requests/min anonymous). Since annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, the description enriches with operational details.

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 highly concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the key purpose in the first sentence, then efficiently covers usage, behavioral details, and rate limits. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple parameter (one array of strings) and the presence of an output schema (implied by the detailed output description), the description fully covers what the tool does, its behavior, and when to use it. No gaps for its complexity level.

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 only parameter 'passwords' has 100% schema coverage including description and examples. The description adds that results are returned in the same order and that an empty string scores 0. This provides useful but not critical extra meaning 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 it is a bulk password strength checker that scores many passwords in one call, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool crypto_password_strength for single password analysis. The verb 'Score many passwords' and resource 'Bulk Password Strength Checker' 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Use it to audit a list at once; use crypto_password_strength for a single password (it also accepts a username and context words).' This gives clear context and exclusions.

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