keccak_hash

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

Without annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the two input types and the algorithm, but omits the output format (likely a hex string) and any edge cases (e.g., handling of empty input, error conditions).

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 sentence with no wasted words, conveying the core functionality efficiently. However, it could include a note about the output format without sacrificing conciseness.

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 is incomplete because it does not specify the output format (e.g., hex string) nor any details about the hash length (256-bit). Since there is no output schema, this information is critical for an agent to correctly use the returned value.

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 description adds meaning beyond the bare schema: it explains that 'input' can be a UTF-8 string or hex bytes depending on the 'inputIsHex' boolean, which is not implied by the parameter names alone. This clarifies the dual functionality.

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 computes a keccak256 hash from either a UTF-8 string or hex bytes, with a specific verb ('keccak256') and resource ('input'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like hex_convert (format conversion) and encode_abi (ABI encoding) by focusing on a specific hash algorithm.

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 over alternatives, such as when to choose hex vs UTF-8 input or how it differs from other hashing or encoding tools in the sibling list.

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