password_strength

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Password is never logged,' a crucial privacy behavior, and enumerates the analytical outputs (crack time, entropy, etc.), giving insight into what happens to the input. This goes beyond a generic 'checks password strength' statement, though it doesn't discuss potential network calls or error behaviors.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and lists concrete outputs efficiently. The privacy note is a single short sentence, earning its place.

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?

The tool is a simple single-input utility. The description names several output aspects (score, entropy, fingerprints, crack time) but omits the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure), which could matter to an agent. However, given the lack of an output schema, the description provides enough for correct invocation: pass a password, get scoring metrics.

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 provides only the parameter name and type (string, required), with no description (0% coverage). The tool description doesn't add any details about the parameter itself—no constraints, formats, or examples; it only references the password generically. The privacy note is a behavioral trait, not a parameter semantic.

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 opens with 'Score a password' which is a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the output dimensions (0-4 zxcvbn-style, entropy bits, common-password fingerprints, keyboard sequences, crack time), making it distinct from the sibling 'password' tool which likely generates passwords. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 the tool is for evaluating password strength, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context is inferable from the name and sibling list, but there's no direct guidance on when to invoke it.

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