scrypt_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithm, output format (hex-encoded salt+hash), and intended purpose. It does not mention the one-way nature or computational cost, but these are reasonably implied by password hashing context.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences containing only relevant information. The PRO trial note is extra but does not dilute clarity.

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 covers core functionality, output format, and use case. It would benefit from clarifying the exact concatenation format of salt and hash, but for a simple tool with fully described parameters, it is mostly complete.

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% with clear descriptions for both password and salt. The description adds the output format but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool hashes a password using Node.js scrypt (RFC 7914) and returns hex-encoded salt + hash. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from generic hash tools and other cryptographic siblings like hmac.

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 provides clear context by stating 'for secure password storage', indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the context effectively implies its intended use case.

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