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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two important behavioral traits: it preserves case and it preserves non-alphabet symbols. It also signals flexibility with 'arbitrary Caesar cipher shift.' While it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., out-of-range amount) and return format, the stated behaviors add significant transparency beyond a generic 'rotates text'.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the main action, then adds the key constraints (case/symbol preservation). Every phrase earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate: it states the core operation and preservation behavior. However, it lacks explicit guidance on the return value (though it is strongly implied to be the rotated string) and does not address edge cases such as empty input or invalid 'amount' values. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a bit more detail would make it fully complete.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces that 'input' is the text to rotate and 'amount' is the shift offset, but it does not add substantive new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states the operation: 'Applies the ROT13 substitution cipher or an arbitrary Caesar cipher shift to alphabetic characters while preserving case and non-alphabet symbols.' It uses a specific verb ('Applies') and names the exact resource (cipher rotation), making it readily distinguishable from siblings like from_base64 or xor without needing to inspect schemas.

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 use case by naming ROT13 and Caesar cipher shifts, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it does not mention that non-alphabetic content is handled gracefully or suggest not using it for binary data. Usage context is implied rather than clearly articulated.

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