random

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses security source (OS CSPRNG), details each kind, notes output format and entropy, and states value is never logged elsewhere. Very 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?

Well-structured with paragraphs for different kinds, but slightly lengthy. Could be more concise, but front-loaded with the most important info. Still efficient for the complexity.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very complete. It explains the return shape and secrecy, covering all necessary context for correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters: `kind`, `nbytes`, `length`, `words`, `separator`, `wordlist`, `output_format`. Each parameter's effect is clearly described.

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?

Clearly states it generates cryptographically secure random bytes, tokens, or passphrases. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on randomness generation.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but the description thoroughly explains each `kind` and parameter usage, making it clear when to use this tool for random generation. Slight lack of contrast with siblings.

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