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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context about verification/comparison use cases but does not describe runtime behavior such as reading the file, handling missing files, or what the returned checksum looks like. The low annotation burden keeps this at a 3 rather than lower.

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 sentence that front-loads the usage trigger and gives three concrete examples. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 tool is simple: three documented parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the behavioral safety profile. The description provides the selection context needed for an agent to choose this tool over file read/copy/compare alternatives. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: path is documented as an absolute path, device is documented as a ReMCP device id from list_devices, and algorithm has an enum with a default value of sha256. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 conveys the tool's purpose through concrete use cases—checksum verification, file comparison, and transfer confirmation—rather than a direct verb like 'computes a hash.' This makes the tool distinguishable from all file-related siblings, though it is slightly indirect and relies on the title for the core action.

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 explicitly opens with 'Use this when the user wants a checksum' and lists three specific scenarios. Since no sibling tool offers hashing, excluding alternatives is unnecessary; the guidance is clear and actionable.

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