password

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions entropy calculation and crack time estimation, which adds some behavioral context, but doesn't disclose output format, whether generation uses CSPRNG, what check_strength returns (score, verdict, both?), or any rate limits. For a security-related tool, the lack of detail about the strength check output is notable.

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?

One clear, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary function (generate) and adds the secondary capability (check strength). No wasted words. Could arguably add a hint about which parameters are relevant per action, but the length is appropriate.

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 tool with 9 parameters, two modes, and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It covers the two actions but doesn't explain what the check_strength action returns (entropy value? crack time? recommendation?) or how defaults apply per action. An agent could call it correctly from the schema, but might not understand the return format or edge cases.

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 schema documents all 9 parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond this - it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., behavior when all character-type booleans are false) or clarify which params apply to which action. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the full schema coverage.

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 clear purpose: generate secure passwords or check strength with entropy and crack time. It covers the tool's two main actions (generate, check_strength) matching the action enum. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like generate_id, though the domain (password vs ID) makes the distinction fairly obvious.

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 two modes (generate vs check strength) and the schema makes action required, but there's no explicit guidance on when to choose one over the other, nor when to use this vs hash or generate_id. The context is implied rather than stated. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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