score_password

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states the basic action. It does not disclose what the score represents, whether the password is transmitted or processed locally, or what side effects, if any, exist.

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 sentence with no filler and is immediately understandable. It errs on the side of too little structure rather than excess, which keeps it from being a model of front-loaded organization.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the return value or the difference between 'json' and 'human' output beyond the schema's enum. An agent knows it should pass a password, but not how to interpret the result or handle edge cases.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'password' and 'output' are documented with descriptions, and the output parameter includes an enum and default. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('score') and resource ('password strength'), making the tool's function clear. It is not a pure tautology because 'strength' adds meaning beyond the tool name, though it does not elaborate on the scoring scale or criteria.

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 or when to prefer an alternative. While the sibling list contains password generation tools, the description does not explain that this tool is for analysis rather than creation, leaving usage context to inference.

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