Password & passphrase generator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral guarantees: OS CSPRNG with rejection sampling, and that nothing is stored or logged. It also discloses the return shape (1–1000 results with exact entropy bits, strength grade, crack time at 100 billion guesses/s), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the two modes before any detail, so an agent can stop reading early if it only needs the gist. The parenthetical option lists are dense and restate schema flags, which costs some length, but there is no filler or marketing padding.

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 14-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers mode semantics, both parameter domains, and the return payload (results, entropy, grade, crack time). Safety behavior is covered by annotations and reinforced by the CSPRNG/no-logging statements, leaving no practical gap for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries a mode-prefixed description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some extra semantics beyond the schema — the 2,381-word list size, the explicit look-alike set Il1|O0o, and the 1–1000 result cap — which helps an agent choose values correctly, though most of the range/flag detail is restated.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-plus-resource ("Generate strong random passwords ... or passphrases") and immediately enumerates the option space for each mode, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces without opening the schema. Sibling names like password_check are clearly a different operation (validation), and the mode split makes the tool's identity unambiguous.

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 makes mode selection explicit by splitting options into "password" and "passphrase" groups, and gives concrete guidance such as the 8–128 char and 3–12 word ranges. It does not, however, mention when to prefer this over the sibling password_check tool or state any 'do not use for X' exclusions.

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