crypto_scrypt_verify

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

No annotations provided. The description only gives generic cryptographic background ('memory-hard...') but does not specify the tool's actual behavior (generating vs verifying) or any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Critical behavioral information is missing.

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 irrelevant metadata ('Menu ID:') and pushes guidance to another tool. The first sentence is redundant with the name. It wastes space on non-helpful details.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 6 poorly documented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly or understand its output.

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 defines 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'customizable parameters' without explaining any parameter's meaning, expected format, or relationship. For example, salt is nullable but declared required; N, r, p are integers with no 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 labels the tool as 'Scrypt Generator' and says it generates hashes, but the tool name is 'crypto_scrypt_verify', implying verification. This misalignment confuses purpose. The sibling tools include both a generator and verifier, so the description fails to distinguish which one this is.

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 or not use this tool. It does not differentiate from the sibling crypto_scrypt (likely generate) or other crypto tools. The suggestion to use describe_tool elsewhere abdicates responsibility.

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