crypto_scrypt

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

No annotations exist; the description states it is memory-hard and resistant, which is relevant behavioral info. However, it does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or constraints like parameter limits.

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 two sentences and efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, the first sentence is slightly redundant ('Menu ID: scrypt. Scrypt Generator.') and could be streamlined.

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 (6 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain parameter values, return format, or typical usage. Reliance on describe_tool is acknowledged but not a substitute.

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 6 required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only says 'customizable parameters' without explaining password, N, r, p, length, or salt. An agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description.

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?

Description clearly states 'Generate secure Scrypt password hashes' and positions it as a memory-hard KDF resistant to hardware attacks, distinguishing it from sibling hashing tools like bcrypt or argon2.

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 hints at use for secure password storage with resistance to hardware attacks, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. It recommends using describe_tool for full guidance, which is a partial substitute.

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