file_fingerprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing that content is deliberately not returned and that the output is a hash plus size used for concurrency checks. The 'text file' qualifier hints at a scope limitation but the behavior on binary or missing files is left unstated.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, front-loaded with the return value and immediately followed by the usage condition. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs purpose and routing, both of which it supplies; the main remaining gap is that 'text file' implies a restriction on non-text inputs that is never explained.

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 both 'path' and 'server_id' fully documented including the WISP_SERVER_ID default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no path semantics or formatting detail beyond it.

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 specific verb and resource ('Return SHA-256 and size metadata for a text file') plus an explicit negative scope ('without returning its content'), which cleanly separates it from read_file and read_file_chunk in the sibling list.

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?

Gives an explicit when: 'Use before safe_write_file or replace_in_file when only concurrency verification is needed,' naming two sibling alternatives and the condition that selects this tool over them.

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