crypto_sha3_generator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses supported hash variants and input formats but does not mention behavioral aspects like idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling. It references external guidance but leaves some transparency gaps.

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 three sentences long, each serving a purpose: identification, core functionality with variants, and referral to additional guidance. No fluff, information is front-loaded.

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?

While the description explains output types and input formats, it does not clarify how the agent should supply inputs given the empty schema. The reference to describe_tool helps but does not substitute for explaining the interaction model. The tool's API behavior remains ambiguous.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds value by listing acceptable input formats (text, hex, Base64), which compensates for the lack of schema structure. For a zero-parameter tool, this is above baseline.

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's purpose: generating SHA3 cryptographic hashes (SHA3-224, SHA3-256, SHA3-384, SHA3-512) for text, hex, and Base64 inputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto_hash by specifying SHA3 and mentioning it is Keccak-based NIST FIPS 202.

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 implies usage for generating SHA3 hashes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crypto_hash or crypto_keccak_generator. It mentions using describe_tool for full guidance, but lacks direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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