Check Local by Hashes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action (checking presence) but does not disclose potential behaviors such as read-only nature, response format, or error handling. However, the action is straightforward and not misleading, so a neutral score is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and provides the endpoint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description implicitly indicates the result (which hashes are present) and provides the endpoint, making it sufficiently complete for such a straightforward operation.

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 covers the only parameter (hashes) with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, giving a baseline score of 3.

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: checking which given file hashes are already present locally. It includes the endpoint for reference, and it is distinct from sibling tools like sdnext_civitai_version_by_hash, which fetches version info rather than checking local presence.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sdnext_civitai_version_by_hash or other Civitai tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help the agent decide to call this tool.

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