password-strength

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the critical privacy behavior: 'Does NOT store or transmit the password' and 'processed locally' appears in the schema. It also enumerates the evaluation dimensions, giving a clear operational picture. It does not describe the return format, but that is a minor gap for a read-only analysis tool.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides the specific checks and the crucial privacy guarantee. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the standard, the checks performed, and the privacy behavior. The main gap is that no return value or output shape is described, which is more noticeable because there is no output schema. Still, the overall context is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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%, so the only parameter 'password' is already fully documented with a description that includes local processing and no storage or transmission. The tool description reinforces the purpose but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 names a specific verb ('Analyze'), a clear resource ('password strength'), and a concrete standard ('NIST SP 800-63b guidelines'), then lists the exact checks performed. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which target unrelated security tasks like hash analysis, CVE checks, and header scanning.

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 makes the tool's context obvious: it is for evaluating password strength using NIST guidelines, with explicit scope of checks. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that an agent can safely infer when this tool applies.

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