websex_file_hashes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says hashes are calculated but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether the file is modified, what permissions are required, or how the optional algorithms parameter affects behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose structured fields carry most operational 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is incomplete: it omits parameter semantics, safety/read-only context, and algorithm handling that an agent needs to call the tool confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies a workspace file path and engagement context, but gives no meaning for the required engagement_id or the optional algorithms parameter, including defaults or supported values.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate complete cryptographic hashes for a workspace file.' This is clearly distinct from generic file inspection or cracking tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling hash tools such as websex_hashpump or websex_hash_identifier.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not help an agent decide between this tool and related sibling tools like websex_hashcat, websex_john, or websex_hash_identifier.

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