hash.compute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention idempotency, security considerations, performance characteristics, or any limitations (e.g., input size limits). The description is minimal and adds little beyond the obvious.

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 18 words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool has 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description should explain parameter relationships and usage. It covers the core 'compute hashes' but omits details on how to specify multiple algorithms, encoding defaults, and what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 40%. The description lists algorithm options but does not explain the relationship between 'algorithm' and 'algorithms' (single vs. array), nor does it clarify the meaning of inputEncoding and outputEncoding beyond what is in the schema. The description provides minimal added value over the parameter names.

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 verb 'Compute' and the resource 'cryptographic hashes', listing specific algorithms and indicating multiple hashes are possible. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which compute hashes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool's purpose is clear, there is no context about when to choose specific algorithms or when this tool is preferred over others (e.g., crypto.address-validate for different crypto operations).

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