detect_cipher_type

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'attempt to identify,' but fails to specify whether the tool is read-only, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The return is described vaguely as 'JSON with cipher type analysis.'

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 two lines of content plus an arguments list. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and every sentence is necessary. No redundancy.

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 an output schema (not shown) and only one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return format, error conditions, or limitations of the analysis. More context would be beneficial.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds value by explaining 'ciphertext' as 'Encrypted text to analyze.' This is minimal but clarifies the parameter's role. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Attempt to identify the type of cipher used.' This is a specific verb ('identify') and resource ('cipher type'), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like caesar_crack or brute_force_xor, which focus on cracking specific ciphers.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like frequency_analysis and various cipher crackers, the description lacks context for selection, e.g., 'Use this first to determine the cipher type before attempting decryption.'

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