extract_crypto_constants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the types of constants found and the output but does not disclose limitations, potential false positives, or performance considerations. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 concise (two sentences plus a list) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence is relevant, and there is no redundant information. It is well-structured.

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 the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers input sufficiently but lacks details about the return format (e.g., whether it's a list of objects with specific fields). The mention of 'list of found constants with their crypto algorithm association and location' is helpful but could be more explicit.

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?

Only one parameter 'source' exists, with a description in the schema. The tool description adds 'Input: JS source code' which repeats the schema's description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: extracting cryptographic constants from JS source code. It lists specific types of constants (S-boxes, hash values, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings like detect_crypto and reconstruct_algorithm by focusing on constant extraction.

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 mentions input and output but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use after detect_crypto' or 'For full reconstruction, see reconstruct_algorithm'). The context is clear but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use.

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