Calculate local file checksums

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description earns credit for adding real behavioral facts: streaming (memory-safe for large files), support for empty files and up to 8 GiB, and the guarantee that no file contents are returned or modified. It does not mention failure modes for >8 GiB files or hashing errors.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the default. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers input scope, size limits, output form (hex digests) and the default algorithm — enough to call it correctly without an output schema. Ordering of returned digests relative to the requested algorithms list is the only notable omission.

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 coverage is 50% — only input_path is documented in the schema, while `algorithms` has no description. The description adds the size/empty-file constraint and notes SHA-256 is the default, but never names the available algorithms (md5/sha1/sha384/sha512) or says multiple digests can be requested together, leaving the enum array under-explained.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource — streaming a local file through checksum engines to produce hexadecimal digests — which no sibling tool does, so it is naturally distinct from the format/convert family. An agent can immediately tell this is a hashing utility, not a media transformer.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Stream a local file' and the 8 GiB/empty-file support, and the local-only scope is reinforced in the path parameter. However there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool (e.g. integrity verification, deduplication) or what to do when a URL must be hashed instead.

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