validate_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the return is 'JSON with validation results and recommendations,' providing some transparency, but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or whether it modifies state.

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 with three lines plus Args and Returns, front-loading the purpose. No unnecessary words or redundant 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 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is adequate but relies on the presence of an output schema for detail. It lacks specifics on validation criteria and output structure.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing valid algorithms (caesar, vigenere, xor) in the Args section, compensating for 0% schema description coverage. However, it does not detail key format or strength criteria.

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 validates a key's strength for a specified algorithm, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_key (key generation) and others.

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 implies usage for validating key strength before encryption or similar operations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_cnsa_compliance or detect_cipher_type.

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