crypto_whirlpool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses hash generation as behavior but does not state if the tool is read-only, destructive, or any other traits. Absence of annotations means important behavioral context (safety, idempotence) 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?

Short description with three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The 'Menu ID: whirlpool' line is somewhat redundant but not excessively wasteful. Defers to describe_tool efficiently.

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?

Basic purpose is clear, but lacks details on output format, parameter semantics, and any error conditions. With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool without additional guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'from text or files' but the schema only has a 'text' parameter, not files. The 'encoding' parameter is completely unexplained. This creates ambiguity for an agent.

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 it generates 512-bit Whirlpool hashes from text or files, using a specific verb and resource. The name and description distinguish it from sibling crypto hash tools by specifying the Whirlpool algorithm.

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. It mentions use cases (file integrity verification, digital signatures) but does not compare to other hash functions. The description directs to describe_tool for more guidance, but lacks direct usage context.

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