password_strength

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the analysis criteria (entropy, length, character diversity, common patterns), which indicates non-destructive analysis, but it does not describe the return format, edge cases, or whether it checks against actual breached password lists. This is partial transparency.

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 and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the leading '[PRO — 3 trial uses left]' is administrative metadata that adds noise and is unrelated to the tool's functionality, slightly detracting from 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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the user gets back. It does not mention the return value or whether the output is a score, label, or detailed report. While the purpose is clear, this missing information makes the description less complete than it could be for a standalone tool.

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% for the 'password' parameter ('Password to analyze'), which is tautological but does define the parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints or format expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers the parameter.

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 tool's purpose: 'Analyze password strength — calculates entropy, checks length, character diversity, and common patterns'. It uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and identifies the resource ('password strength'), and the specificity (entropy, length, diversity, patterns) distinguishes it from sibling utility tools like hash or random_string.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to assess password strength, and the listed checks make the context clear. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, though no sibling tool directly competes with this functionality.

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