tool_uuid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the UUID is randomly generated, how the version parameter is used, what effect uppercase and withHyphens have beyond their names, or any default behaviors. The output is listed but not described in terms of format or guarantees.

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 extremely concise, with a clear structure: utility name, parameter list, and output list. Every line provides necessary information without waste. The format makes it easy to scan quickly.

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 UUID generator, the description covers the parameters and output, but it omits important context such as what version values are valid, whether hyphens are present by default, and any side effects or restrictions. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail is needed for full contextual completeness, though the tool's simplicity keeps the gap modest.

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%, but the descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'Version', 'Uppercase'). The description adds some value by clearly categorizing uuid as an output rather than an input parameter, which is ambiguous in the schema. However, it does not enrich the meaning of version, uppercase, or withHyphens beyond their names.

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 identifies this as a UUID utility, and the listed parameters and output make it evident that it generates a UUID. The purpose is specific to the UUID resource, but it doesn't explicitly state an action verb like 'generate' or 'create'. It distinguishes itself from sibling utility tools by focusing solely on UUIDs.

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. No context is given for when a UUID is needed, what versions are available, or when to prefer other tools like tool_hash or tool_crypto. The description only lists parameters and output, so usage context is entirely implied.

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