text_random

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions modes and parameters but omits critical details such as whether number ranges are inclusive, how uniqueness is enforced when count exceeds the range, or what the default password charset ('all') includes. These gaps leave significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 line that efficiently conveys the core functionality and mode-parameter mapping. Every part is informative, and the semicolon-separated structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 simple, but without an output schema or annotations, the description should at least hint at the result format and edge-case behavior. It covers the main usage patterns but omits details like return type (e.g., single value vs. array) and constraints (e.g., min/max relationship). It is adequate for basic use but incomplete for a fully self-sufficient description.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds value by grouping parameters by mode (e.g., min/max/count/unique for number; length/charset for password), but it does not explain the meaning of individual parameters like 'unique' or 'charset'. This is partial compensation, warranting a mid-range score.

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 '随机数/密码生成' (random number/password generation), a specific verb+resource pairing. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like uuid_generate (UUIDs) and crypto_hash (hashing), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear usage guidance by separating the two modes with 'type=number' and 'type=password' and listing which parameters apply to each. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, but the purpose is distinct enough that the guidance is practical and context-rich.

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