crypto_verify_algorithm

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a local encryption library, performs computation, and compares ciphertexts. This is sufficient for a verification tool; it does not mention side effects or error handling, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the verb, resource, and process efficiently.

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 purpose, process, and inputs adequately. It lacks explicit mention of output format, but the phrase 'compare whether the same ciphertext can be obtained' implies a boolean result. With no output schema, this is sufficient but could be more explicit.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by integrating parameters into a narrative flow ('input plaintext + parameters, compare'), helping an agent understand the overall process beyond individual schema descriptions.

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 the tool verifies a guessed cryptographic algorithm by comparing computed ciphertext with expected. It uses a specific verb 'verify' and resource 'algorithm', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crypto_auto_detect or crypto_analyze_param, which have related but distinct 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?

The description implies when to use (after guessing an algorithm) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools. An agent can infer usage context, but lacks direct guidance on choosing between siblings.

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