diceware_passphrase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It asserts the output is 'secure' and random but does not explain the source of randomness, whether generation is local/offline, or what the returned value looks like. For a security-relevant generator with zero annotation coverage, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose is conveyed immediately and nothing needs trimming.

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?

For a simple two-parameter generator with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It could reasonably note that it returns a passphrase string and that generation is local, but the core need is covered.

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 'words' documented as 3-12/default 6 and 'separator' as default '-', so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Generate a secure random passphrase') and names the algorithm family (diceware word list), so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near siblings like password_generate or random_string, but the passphrase-vs-password distinction is reasonably implied.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as password_generate for shorter secrets. The agent must infer applicability purely from the name and sentence.

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