crypto.crt

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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the transparency bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: inputs must be equal-length string lists, moduli must be positive and pairwise coprime, non-coprime inputs are rejected, and the result is normalized into [0, modulus). That is a solid failure-mode disclosure, though it does not say how the rejection is surfaced.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying information: the operation, the input constraints, the output range, and the rejection rule. The purpose statement comes first, so the definition is front-loaded. Minor redundancy between the coprime precondition and the rejection sentence keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it still specifies the normalization range of x, which is exactly the detail an agent needs to interpret the result. Combined with the coprime requirement and the rejection rule, everything required to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics and largely does: it explains that residues and moduli are equal-length integer string lists, that moduli must be positive and pairwise coprime, and that the returned x lies between 0 and the product of the moduli. The only gap is the absence of format examples or bounds guidance for very large integers.

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 names a specific verb and mathematical object ("중국인의 나머지 정리로 연립합동식 x ≡ r_i (mod m_i) 의 해 x 를 구한다") and pins down exactly what is computed. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as crypto.modinv, crypto.egcd, and crypto.modpow, which handle different number-theoretic operations.

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 gives clear preconditions and an explicit exclusion: moduli must be pairwise coprime, and non-coprime moduli are rejected even when a solution exists. That tells an agent when this tool applies and when it will fail. It stops short of naming an alternative for the non-coprime case, so it is not a full 5.

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