tool_hmac_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists inputs and the 'valid' output, but does not mention supported algorithms, how HMAC comparison is performed, input encoding expectations, or error behavior. This is minimal and repeats schema content rather than adding meaningful context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the [crypto] category and purpose. The parameter list duplicates schema information, but the overall length is appropriate for a simple tool and contains no filler.

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's cryptographic nature, the absence of annotations and output schema makes the description underspecified. It omits crucial details like supported algorithm names, default behavior, required fields, and how the expected HMAC is encoded or compared. The schema's inclusion of 'valid' as an input property adds further ambiguity.

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%, but the description adds no new details beyond what the schema already provides. It introduces confusion by listing 'valid' under Outputs while the input schema includes 'valid' as a property, making it ambiguous whether 'valid' is an input or output parameter.

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 clearly indicates an HMAC verification operation through its title 'HMAC Verify' and the listed expectedHmac, data, key, and algorithm parameters, with a boolean 'valid' result. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like tool_hmac by the explicit 'Verify' action and output semantics.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tool_hmac or tool_hash_verify. The description lacks context about prerequisites, use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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