crypto_hash_data

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or security considerations. For a pure function like hashing, the description is adequate but does not add extra transparency beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence to convey purpose, output, supported algorithms, and default. It is front-loaded with the key action and leaves no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is simple and the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what algorithms are supported, and the default behavior.

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 lacks descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that 'data' is the string to hash and 'algorithm' is the hash algorithm with a list of supported values and a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 hashes a string using a specified algorithm and returns the hex digest. It lists supported algorithms and the default, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from other crypto tools like crypto_hmac_sign.

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 context for when to use the tool (hashing a string) but does not explicitly warn against using it for HMAC or other related operations. The sibling tools include crypto_hmac_sign, so the user could infer this, but explicit guidance is missing.

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