caesar_cipher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only mentions the monetary cost, not what the tool does to the input, whether it supports both encoding and decoding, or any side effects. This is critically insufficient.

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 text is extremely short but is under-specified rather than concise. A one-sentence description that repeats the name and cost does not count as effective 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?

The description is completely inadequate for a functional tool. It provides no information about input format, output, behavior, or edge cases, and with no output schema or annotations to compensate, it fails all contextual completeness requirements.

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 a single generic 'params' object with no meaningful property definitions. The description adds no parameter details, leaving the user entirely in the dark about what to pass (e.g., text, shift amount, direction).

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 merely repeats the tool name 'caesar cipher' and adds the vague category 'Other Utilities tool'. It does not state a verb or define what operation is performed (e.g., encrypts/decrypts text using a Caesar shift), nor does it distinguish from similar sibling tools like rot13_cipher or atbash_cipher.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what kind of input it expects, or how it compares to alternative cipher tools. The description provides no contextual usage direction whatsoever.

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