hash_bcrypt

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying a mutation, but the description does not clarify side effects, security considerations, or that the operation is stateless. The description adds no transparency beyond the structured data.

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 sentence that conveys the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, achieving high information density.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a hash string for generation, a boolean for verification), nor does it mention error conditions (e.g., invalid rounds, wrong password). Given the complexity, the description is incomplete.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond that; it only restates the tool's purpose. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 clearly states the dual purpose: 'Generate bcrypt hash or verify password against hash'. It uses a specific verb (generate/verify) and resource (bcrypt hash), and the name itself distinguishes it from sibling hashing tools like hash_md5 or hash_sha256.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description indicate bcrypt usage, there is no comparison with other hashing tools or guidance on when bcrypt is appropriate. It is inferred but not stated.

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