crypto_auto_detect

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

No annotations provided; description only says it scans JS code automatically. Does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, potential performance impact, or whether it modifies the page. Lacks safety or side-effect information.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with key action and supported algorithms. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema; description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., list of detected algorithms, libraries). Also missing prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded). Incomplete for a detection tool given many sibling tools with different capabilities.

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?

No parameters in schema, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info but none is needed. It does not misrepresent parameter details.

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?

Description clearly states it scans JS code to detect encryption algorithms and libraries, listing supported types. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like crypto_identify_library or crypto_verify_algorithm, which have similar purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when to prefer sibling tools for more specific tasks.

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