crypto_detect

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior: tests all patterns, returns sorted matches with confidence, attempts decoding for top results. Lacks mention of potential limitations like false positives or performance impact, but covers main actions.

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 concise sentences that convey all necessary information without redundancy. Every word adds value. Very efficient.

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 no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of return behavior (matches sorted by confidence with decoding attempts). Slightly incomplete on exact format but sufficient for a detection tool.

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 already fully describes the single parameter ('Encoded string to analyze'). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score applies due to high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: auto-detect encoding type of an input string, testing against known patterns. Specifically distinguishes itself from siblings like crypto_decode by focusing on detection rather than decoding a known format.

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?

Describes the tool's general purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings (e.g., crypto_decode for known encodings, crypto_hash_id for hashes). Use context is implied but not stated.

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