tool_hmac

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the parameter list. It does not state whether the tool computes or verifies HMAC, what output format(s) are returned, or any side effects/preconditions. Additionally, the schema includes 'hmac' as a property while the description lists it only as an output, creating ambiguity about whether hmac is an input or output—this inconsistency is not clarified.

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 terse and front-loaded with '[crypto] HMAC', but the parameter list is repetitive of the schema and not structured as helpful sentences. It is under-specified rather than elegantly concise; while short, it does not earn its place by providing useful information beyond the schema.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is completely inadequate for a crypto tool. It omits critical details like supported algorithms, output encoding formats, whether verification is included, and how the 'hmac' parameter behaves (input vs. output). The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description provides no context beyond a bare list.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a one-word description), so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter list exactly mirrors the schema and adds no extra meaning—e.g., it does not clarify valid values for 'algorithm' or 'outputFormat'. It neither improves nor hurts parameter understanding.

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 'HMAC' as a category/name but does not use a specific verb like 'compute' or 'generate'. The parameter list (data, key, algorithm, outputFormat) implies HMAC generation, but the purpose is vague and not explicitly distinguished from sibling tools like tool_hmac_verify. It is not a pure tautology, but it lacks a clear action verb.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tool_hmac_verify, tool_crypto). There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or context. It simply lists parameters and outputs, offering no usage direction.

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