generate_ss2022_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a key but doesn't specify if this is a one-time operation, whether the key is stored or ephemeral, or any rate limits or permissions required. For a key-generation tool, this lack of detail on security implications and usage constraints is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 tool's moderate complexity (key generation with cipher options) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like key usage, security considerations, or integration with sibling tools. This leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use, especially in a server with multiple related tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'cipher' well-documented in the schema itself (including enum values and default). The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, as the schema sufficiently handles the semantics without needing extra description.

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 the action ('Generate') and resource ('base64 key for Shadowsocks 2022'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like generate_password or generate_x25519_keypair by specifying the key type and protocol version. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from 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 like generate_password or generate_client_config. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether this is for client or server setup, or integration with other tools in the server. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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