crypto_frequency

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only analysis (no modification) and explains what computations are performed. It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but for a passive analysis tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. No fluff or extraneous details.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the what, how, and interpretation of results (IC values). It is sufficiently complete given the tool's complexity.

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 has one parameter with description 'Text to analyze', and coverage is 100%. The description adds context on the analysis but does not enhance the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs character frequency analysis for cryptanalysis, including counting occurrences, comparing to standard English letter frequency, and calculating Index of Coincidence. This specific verb+resource job distinguishes it from siblings like crypto_detect or crypto_entropy.

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 tells when to use it (cryptanalysis frequency analysis) and provides interpretation guidelines for IC values. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling context implies differentiation.

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