detect_crypto

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

With no annotations, the description discloses core behavior (detection, output format) but omits potential limitations (e.g., false positives, performance with large code, handling of dynamic imports). It does not contradict any annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first introduces the purpose, second details the output. Extremely concise, front-loaded, with no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 covers input, output format, and key details (algorithm families, evidence). Given the moderate complexity (2 params, nested object) and no output schema, it provides sufficient context. Could mention handling of edge cases or error conditions for completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description reiterates the input as 'JS source code string' but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool detects cryptographic algorithms in JavaScript source code, listing specific algorithm families (AES, RSA, SM2, etc.) and the extracted evidence (location, key source, IV, mode). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'identify_obfuscation' and 'extract_crypto_constants'.

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 use when needing to identify crypto usage in JS code but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'extract_crypto_constants' or 'reconstruct_algorithm'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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