brute_force_xor

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 disclosing behavioral traits. The description does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. It only states that it returns potential plaintexts, leaving the agent uninformed about safety or resource implications.

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, using a clear docstring format with Args and Returns. Every sentence is necessary and no extraneous information is included.

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 only two simple parameters and an output schema exists (mentioned but not shown), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it could explicitly note that max_key_length accepts 1-4 and mention the output schema details.

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 0%, so the description must add value. It explains that 'ciphertext_hex' is hex-encoded ciphertext and 'max_key_length' has a default of 4 and range 1-4, which adds necessary context beyond the basic type definitions. However, it could provide more detail, such as example hex format or the exact output structure.

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 states the tool's purpose: brute-forcing XOR ciphers with single-byte or short keys. It uses a specific verb 'brute force' and resource 'XOR cipher', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'xor_cipher' and 'caesar_crack' by specifying the attack method.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'xor_cipher' or frequency analysis. It implies usage for short-key XOR cracking but provides no guidance on when not to use it or when other tools are preferred.

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