verify_image_integrity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'hash' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the image or that it only reads the file. It adds the purpose (chain-of-custody) but stops short of detailing the output or side effects.

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 that front-loads the primary action and purpose. Every word serves a function, and there is no redundant information.

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 has two required parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description fails to clarify the 'source' parameter. While an output schema exists, the lack of parameter semantics leaves a significant gap in understanding the tool's full usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. The description indirectly references the image path via 'evidence image' but does not mention 'source' at all. The meaning of 'source' remains unclear—whether it refers to the hash algorithm source, the image origin, or something else is unspecified.

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 function: 'Hash an evidence image (sha256/md5) for chain-of-custody.' This uses a specific verb (hash), targets a specific resource (evidence image), and even includes the purpose (chain-of-custody). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on image integrity verification.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance with 'Run this first,' indicating this should be executed before other forensic tools. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, though the instruction to run first implies a specific position in the process.

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