detect_crypto

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a static analysis operation but does not disclose whether it modifies state, requires permissions, or has any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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, focused sentence with a useful list of algorithms. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more structured with separation of algorithm list.

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 description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., matches, confidence scores) or how to interpret the output. This is a significant gap for a detection tool, especially with no output schema provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by mapping 'inline source' to the 'source' parameter and 'cached script' to 'scriptUrl', adding basic semantic context. However, it lacks details on accepted formats or constraints.

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 action ('Run'), the resource ('static crypto-algorithm signature rules'), and lists specific algorithms (AES, RC4, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'search_in_scripts' or 'deobfuscate_code' by focusing solely on cryptographic pattern detection.

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 usage for detecting crypto algorithms in source code, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_in_scripts' for general pattern matching) or when not to use it.

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