identify_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it does disclose useful behavior: the result is a guess based on length and pattern, i.e. a heuristic rather than a definitive determination. It does not mention that multiple algorithms can match, nor anything about auth/permissions or response 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 tight sentence with the resource and method front-loaded and no filler. Nothing wasted.

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 trivial one-parameter tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say what it returns (single best guess vs. ranked candidates) and note ambiguity. That is the main missing piece.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; calling the input a 'hash string' does establish what 'value' means. It adds no format or length constraints beyond that, so it is only partially compensating.

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 ('guess/identify') and resource ('algorithm/format of a hash string'), which clearly separates it from compute_hashes (which produces hashes) and estimate_password_strength. It stops short of naming or explicitly contrasting those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 only implied: the agent must infer 'call this when you have a hash string of unknown type.' There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to the nearest alternative (compute_hashes). Sibling context provides the only differentiation.

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