crypto_pbkdf2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions generation and algorithm support but does not describe side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens with optional parameters like salt (nullable). The term 'hash verification' is unclear.

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 (3 sentences) but includes an unnecessary internal 'Menu ID' line. The key generative purpose is front-loaded, but the structure could be improved by removing the menu ID and directly stating supported algorithms and usage.

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 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter details, verification capability, or how to use the tool effectively. It defers to describe_tool, which shifts the burden.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any individual parameters (password, algorithm, iterations, length, salt). It vaguely mentions 'customizable algorithms and parameters' but provides no details on accepted values, formats, or constraints.

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 PBKDF2 password hashes with customizable algorithms and parameters. It mentions support for SHA-256 and SHA-512, and distinguishes from the sibling tool crypto_pbkdf2_verify by focusing on generation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like crypto_argon2 or crypto_bcrypt. The mention of 'hash verification' is ambiguous and does not clarify verification vs generation. The tool relies on the user to use describe_tool for full guidance.

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