encrypt_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation and gives no information about output format, encryption algorithm, error behavior, or what happens with different key formats. For a security-sensitive operation this is a significant gap.

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 short and avoids redundancy, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified rather than economically informative; it essentially restates the tool name and leaves all behavioral and parameter details to be inferred.

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 has only two straightforward parameters and an output schema exists, so the description is minimally usable. But for an encryption operation, key handling, expected encryption scheme, and output characteristics are important context that is entirely absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the message or encryption_key parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, such as expected key format, message encoding, or length constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Encrypt') and resource ('a message'), making the core operation clear. It is differentiated from the sibling decrypt_message by semantic opposition, though it does not explicitly name or reference that sibling.

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 intended usage is implied by the tool name and the 'encrypt' verb, and the sibling is decrypt_message, so the context suggests when to use this tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it instead of alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of key requirements.

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