crypto_analyze_param

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool infers algorithms from ciphertext format and length, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, or requirements beyond having sample values. The lack of annotation contradictions is not relevant here due to the absence of annotations.

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 that is clear and front-loaded with the action. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the process of inference.

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, so the description should explain what the output looks like (e.g., identified algorithms, confidence scores). It does not, leaving a significant gap for an analysis tool. The context signals indicate low complexity, but the description fails to cover return values comprehensively.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (e.g., 'parameter name (e.g., password)' and 'list of ciphertext samples'). The tool description adds overarching context about using ciphertext format and length, which provides some extra meaning, but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 function: analyzing encryption methods of a request parameter by inferring algorithms from ciphertext format and length. It is specific with a verb ('分析') and resource ('请求参数的加密方式'), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like crypto_auto_detect.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when it should be avoided, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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