crypto_xor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the brute-force approach, scoring criteria, and key length estimation method. It does not mention error handling or performance, but the key behaviors are transparent.

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: first states the core action and method, second details multi-byte approach and output. No superfluous information; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the algorithm and result count (top 5), but lacks details about the output format (e.g., what exactly is returned: keys, scores, decoded text?). For a tool without output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context by explaining how 'input' is ciphertext (hex/base64) and how 'max_key_length' is used in multi-byte brute-force, adding value beyond schema.

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 XOR key brute-force for single-byte and multi-byte keys, explaining the scoring method (printable character ratio) and key length estimation (Index of Coincidence). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_detect, crypto_decode, etc.

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 implies usage when XOR-encrypted data is suspected, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., crypto_detect, crypto_decode) or provide exclusions. Usage guidance is only implied.

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