Text-Toolkit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Generate HMAC hash' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, what permissions might be required, rate limits, error conditions, or output format. For a cryptographic tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a complete failure to describe behavioral characteristics beyond the basic function name.

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 maximally concise at just three words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective, there is zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word directly contributes to stating the tool's basic function, though this comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given a cryptographic tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what HMAC is, how it differs from other hash functions, what the parameters mean, what the output looks like, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool of this complexity and context, the description provides virtually no useful information beyond the tool name itself.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters (text, key, algorithm), the description provides absolutely no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or valid values. 'Generate HMAC hash' doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent completely in the dark about what inputs are required and what they represent. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Generate HMAC hash' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'generate_hmac'. While it correctly identifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('HMAC hash'), it provides no additional specificity about what HMAC means, what it's used for, or how it differs from sibling hash generation tools like generate_md5, generate_sha1, etc. The purpose is technically correct but lacks differentiation and meaningful context.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple hash generation siblings (generate_md5, generate_sha1, generate_sha256, generate_sha512, generate_hmac), but the description doesn't explain what makes HMAC different, when it's appropriate versus other hash functions, or any prerequisites for use. This leaves the agent with no contextual decision-making framework.

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