file_hash

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about the tool's purpose (integrity verification) and includes an example that demonstrates parameter usage, which helps clarify behavior beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by an example. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. The example is helpful but could be slightly more concise; overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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's moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose and provides an example, which complements the structured data without needing to detail return values (handled by output schema) or repeat schema information.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (path, algorithm, output_format). The description mentions the algorithms and includes an example with parameters, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose: '文件哈希计算：使用MD5、SHA1、SHA256或SHA512算法计算文件哈希值，用于完整性验证' (File hash calculation: uses MD5, SHA1, SHA256 or SHA512 algorithms to calculate file hash values for integrity verification). It specifies the verb ('计算' - calculate), resource ('文件哈希值' - file hash values), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_compare or file_search by focusing on hash computation rather than comparison or searching.

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 implies usage for '完整性验证' (integrity verification), which provides some context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., vs. file_compare for content comparison) or any prerequisites. The example shows a specific use case but lacks broader guidance on tool selection.

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