caesar_crack

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

Discloses the method (frequency analysis) and return format (JSON with plaintext and shift). However, lacks details like language dependency (assumes English?), error handling, or limitations. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, which is partially met.

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?

Structured with Args and Returns sections, no redundant sentences. Extremely concise while conveying essential information.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but signaled), the description adequately covers the return format. However, it could mention that frequency analysis assumes English text, which is a key constraint for accurate cracking. Overall, sufficient for a well-typed tool.

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?

Provides clear, separate descriptions for each parameter in the Args section: 'ciphertext: Encrypted text to crack' and 'show_all: Show all 26 possible decryptions'. The schema itself has no parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates with 100% coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Crack Caesar cipher using frequency analysis', specifying both the method and target cipher. Distinguishes from siblings like caesar_decrypt (which requires a known key) and frequency_analysis (which only performs analysis).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like caesar_decrypt. The description implies it's for unknown shifts but does not state exclusions or provide context for selection among sibling tools.

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