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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: it performs no signature matching and always returns an indeterminate verdict. However, it refers to 'target file' while the schema also allows 'SYSTEM_MEMORY', creating a minor inconsistency that slightly detracts from full transparency.

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, consisting of two sentences that convey the essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and directly addresses the tool's function and limitations.

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 combination of annotations, schema, and description provides a fairly complete picture of the tool's behavior and scope. The only gap is the file vs. memory inconsistency, which is partially resolved by the schema description, but the description itself could be more consistent.

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?

The schema fully describes the 'target' parameter, including the option for 'SYSTEM_MEMORY'. However, the tool description says 'Hashes a target file', which contradicts the schema's allowance for memory scanning, potentially confusing an agent about the parameter's semantics.

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 that the tool hashes a target file using SHA-256 and explicitly notes that it performs no signature matching, always returning an INDETERMINATE result. It also distinguishes itself from a real scan by directing users to the engine stdio gateway, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance to use the engine stdio gateway for a real scan, which clarifies when not to use this tool. It could be more specific about appropriate use cases (e.g., integrity checks), but the limitation and alternative are clearly communicated.

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