hash_password

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

The description provides an extensive 'Behavioral Transparency' section covering side effects (read-only, stateless, idempotent), authentication needs (optional API key for pro tiers), rate limits (10/day free), error handling (structured errors), and data privacy (no storage). Since no annotations exist, this fully compensates and even exceeds expectations.

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 redundantly structured—'Behavior:' and 'Behavioral Transparency:' sections overlap (both mention read-only, idempotent). The 'When to use' section is vague and adds no real guidance. While it is organized with headings, it could be trimmed to essential information without losing clarity.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, algorithms, behavioral traits, error handling, and rate limits comprehensively. It mentions the output schema is available (not described, but that's permissible per instructions). However, it lacks explicit instruction on how to use the api_key parameter for pro/enterprise tiers, leaving a minor gap.

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 0%, yet the description's 'Args' section only repeats parameter names with generic phrases like 'The password to analyze or process.' It does not clarify valid algorithm values (though listed earlier), the role of salt, or how api_key is used. More detail is needed to guide correct parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 'Hash a password' and lists supported algorithms (md5, sha1, sha256, sha512, sha3_256), which directly conveys the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like check_strength and estimate_crack_time by focusing on hashing rather than analysis or estimation.

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 includes 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, but they are generic ('structured analysis or classification') and do not specifically guide when to use hashing versus sibling tools. It fails to mention that this tool is appropriate for password storage or verification, nor does it contrast with check_strength or generate_password.

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