cyberchef_rsa_multi_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, notably that three of the four attacks recover the message without factoring anything, which sets expectations for what the tool achieves.

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 dense but efficient, packing the purpose, all four attacks, and the sibling pointer into a compact form. It is slightly long as a single sentence but every clause adds useful information.

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 complex multi-key cryptanalysis tool, the description covers the main use cases, attack conditions, and the single-key alternative. It does not describe output format, but given the absence of an output schema and the rich input schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description still adds meaning beyond the parameter names. It explains the franklin_reiter relation parameters as m1 = a*m2 + b and emphasizes that the relation must be known, which is crucial for correct use.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Attack a SET of RSA keys') and clearly defines the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from its sibling by naming the single-key alternative, rsa_attack, and explaining that this tool handles multi-key scenarios.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: for a set of keys or multiple ciphertexts under one key, versus rsa_attack for a single key. It also lists the conditions for each attack type, making selection among the four attacks straightforward.

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