crypto_pbkdf2_verify

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

The description contradicts the tool name by emphasizing generation over verification. With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or whether the tool actually performs generation or verification.

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 includes an unnecessary menu ID and a reference to describe_tool. It could be more concise if it focused on core functionality, but the brevity is not the main issue.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how verification works, or what the optional 'salt' field expects.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'SHA-256, SHA-512' for algorithm, adding minimal value. No explanation of password, iterations, length, or salt semantics.

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 focuses on generation ('PBKDF2 Generator. Generate secure PBKDF2 password hashes...') while the tool name ends with '_verify', creating confusion about the actual purpose. The mention of 'hash verification' is secondary and unclear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its sibling tools (e.g., crypto_pbkdf2 for generation, other verify tools). The description does not specify whether it generates, verifies, or both, and does not mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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