Detect common crypto/algorithm patterns

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read operation, lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds that it returns algorithm type and confidence, but that return content is already covered by the output schema, and it discloses nothing about detection coverage, false-positive behavior, or cost. It adds only marginal behavioral context beyond the annotation and 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?

A single compact sentence with the action, the algorithm list, and the return shape, all front-loaded with no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical list is somewhat long relative to the payload.

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?

With readOnlyHint covering safety and an output schema covering the return format (algorithm type and confidence), the description need not explain return values. It adequately frames a read-only detection tool, with the only gap being the absence of routing guidance against adjacent analysis tools.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (instance_id defaulting to current target, function_address as the target function). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb (自动识别/automatically identify) and resource (common algorithms, listing md5/sha/aes/des/rc4/tea/xor/base64/crc32/zlib) and indicates the return value (algorithm type and confidence). An agent can immediately grasp what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name which sibling (e.g. detect_obfuscation) it should be chosen over.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as detect_obfuscation or analyze_function, which are adjacent analysis tools. Usage is only weakly implied by the tool's own nature, and the description never says under what circumstances to reach for it.

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