compute_hashes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, output format (hex vs base64), or what happens when the algorithm list is omitted. The pure-computation nature is inferable from "compute ... of a string," but nothing confirms it or describes the result shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the operation, input type, and supported algorithms all appear before anything else.

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?

For a low-risk utility with no output schema and only two parameters, the description is roughly adequate to invoke it. It still omits the default algorithm set and the return format, which an agent needs to interpret the result.

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%, so both parameters rely entirely on the description. The algorithm names in the description loosely map to the `algorithms` parameter, but the description never explains that parameter's behavior when null/defaulted, nor does it clarify the `text` input beyond "a string."

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 ("Compute cryptographic digests ... of a string") and enumerates the supported algorithms, which clearly separates it from identify_hash in the sibling list. It doesn't name that sibling explicitly, but the operation and input domain are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase "of a string," which signals this tool hashes literal text rather than files or streams, and the contrast with identify_hash is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so guidance is only implicit.

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