tool_crypto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits: no mention of side effects, permissions, reversibility, error behaviors, or whether it performs both encryption and decryption. The parameter 'operation' hints at variability but is not explained.

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 very short and under-specified. While brevity is good, this crosses into insufficient detail. The structure is a bare list of parameter names without contextual sentences. It fails to convey essential information, making it not genuinely concise but merely skeletal.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'result' is, how 'operation' works, or what the tool actually accomplishes. An AI agent would have no confidence in invoking this tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema parameter names (data, key, iv, algorithm, mode, operation) without adding any meaning beyond the schema's one-word descriptions. It does not explain valid values, formats, or relationships (e.g., which algorithms support which modes). Thus it does not elevate above baseline.

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 is essentially a tautology: '[crypto] Crypto' with parameter names but no verb or explicit action. It does not state what operation is performed (encrypt? decrypt? both?). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like tool_hash, tool_hmac, or tool_classic_cipher, all of which have clearer intent.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the presence of many cryptographic sibling tools, this is a critical omission.

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