file_fingerprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond this: it specifies the exact return values (SHA-256 and size) and the constraint 'text file,' which implies it may not handle binary files. This is useful and not redundant with annotations.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core verb and outcome. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 simplicity, the description is reasonably complete. Output schema exists, so return format is handled elsewhere, and annotations cover safety. The main missing piece is explanation of the server_id parameter, which the description does not address, but overall the tool is adequately specified.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention parameters at all. While 'path' is self-explanatory, 'server_id' is unexplained, leaving ambiguity about its purpose and whether it is required for remote files. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 function: returning SHA-256 and size metadata for a text file. It explicitly distinguishes itself from content-returning tools by adding 'without returning its content,' making its purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'without returning its content' implies this should be used when only metadata is needed, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling tools (e.g., read_file) make the contrast obvious.

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