random_gen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose cryptographic security, specific mode behaviors (e.g., 'balanced round-robin', 'with/without replacement', 'NdM notation'), and the backing implementation. However, it omits return formats, parameter inclusivity, error handling, and other behavioral details that would be useful for an agent. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and organizes the many modes with clear parenthetical specifications. Every clause adds value, no fluff or redundancy. This is exceptionally concise for the breadth of functionality covered.

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's complexity (nine modes) and minimal structured data (one required param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is the primary documentation. It covers all modes and hints at their parameters, which is fairly complete for an initial selection. However, it lacks explicit details on parameter requirements, defaults, and output formats, so an agent may need to infer some invocation details. It is more complete than the schema alone but not exhaustive.

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 schema only defines mode with an enum, and additionalProperties is true, meaning secondary parameters are undocumented. The description compensates by adding meaning to each mode value (e.g., number uses min/max, string uses length and charset, picker uses list and replacement). This goes well beyond the schema and provides useful parameter semantics, though not exhaustive details like types or defaults.

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 identifies the tool as a cryptographically random generator with a specific list of modes, distinguishing it from the many non-random sibling utilities. The phrase 'backed by random_int / random_bytes' adds precision about its source. This meets the 'specific verb+resource' criterion and differentiates from siblings.

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 when to use this tool (whenever random generation is needed) by enumerating many use cases (number, string, picker, team, dice, coin, country, uuid). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives or compare with sibling tools like password or other generators. Usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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