kirikiri_scramble

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the transformation action (re-scramble) and references Scrambler.cs. It does not mention whether the tool reads/writes files, overwrites output, requires existing files, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. The phrase 'Kirikiri FE FE' contains a redundant 'FE', which is slightly sloppy, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description must provide complete context for safe invocation. It does not explain return values, file handling, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow with its many siblings, making it inadequate for confident use.

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 compensate. It clarifies the 'mode' parameter by listing modes 0/1/2, and 'plain text' hints that 'input' is text. However, it does not explain whether 'input' and 'output' are file paths or inline content, nor the effect of different modes beyond the numeric range.

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 uses a specific verb 're-scramble' and identifies the resource 'plain text' to 'Kirikiri FE FE modes 0/1/2', which clearly indicates the operation and distinguishes it from the sibling 'kirikiri_descramble' by action direction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other related tools like 'kirikiri_scramble_tree', so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'kirikiri_descramble' or 'kirikiri_scramble_tree'. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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