cyberchef_rot13

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: characters are shifted, original case is preserved, and non-alphabetic symbols are left untouched. It does not cover idempotency, error cases, or output format, but for a pure stateless string transform this is solid disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that specifies the operation, the configurable variant, and the preservation guarantees with zero filler.

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?

For a two-parameter, stateless cipher tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the definition is essentially complete. Only the absence of usage framing keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'input' and 'amount' are already documented in the schema, including the default of 13. The phrase 'arbitrary Caesar cipher shift' loosely corroborates the amount parameter but adds no syntax or range detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Applies') and resource ('ROT13 substitution cipher or an arbitrary Caesar cipher shift'), and the transformation semantics (case/non-alphabet preservation) clearly separate it from siblings like cyberchef_xor, cyberchef_from_base64, or cyberchef_url_encode.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as cyberchef_xor for other cipher needs. The agent can infer the domain from the cipher name, but nothing is explicitly stated.

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