crypto_calc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what the tool computes but does not disclose whether the operations are pure, side-effect-free, idempotent, or performance characteristics. However, for a pure calculator, the absence of destructive behavior is implied, and the main behavioral context is the routing to batch_calc.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose; the second provides the key alternative. Both sentences earn their place.

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?

For a stateless, pure computation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks details about return format (e.g., hex vs. base64) and edge cases (e.g., invalid input handling). These are minor but would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists operation categories but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states specific verbs and resources: 'Computes cryptographic hashes (MD5, SHA1, SHA256), CRC checksums (CRC32, CRC16), and modular arithmetic (mod_pow, mod_inverse, gcd)'. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling batch_calc by naming it.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool versus batch_calc: 'For several operations or chained steps in one call, use batch_calc.' It does not discuss the other siblings (e.g., modulo, add), but those are for basic arithmetic and not directly overlapping with cryptographic operations.

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