generate_hash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that hashing is performed server-side, output is hex-encoded, and results are consistent. It does not mention any destructive actions or side effects, which is appropriate for a pure computation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by a use case paragraph, then parameter details in a list format. It is relatively concise for the amount of information, though the parameter documentation could be slightly condensed.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields (algorithm, hex, length). It also covers parameter details and behavior. With no annotations, this description is complete and leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to invoke or interpret results.

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% (no descriptions in schema), so the description fully compensates. It explains both parameters: 'data' with UTF-8 encoding, and 'algorithm' with all options, defaults, and security notes. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Hash a string with a cryptographic hash algorithm.' It provides a specific verb (hash) and resource (string), lists multiple algorithms, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated (e.g., validate_email, dns_lookup).

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?

Description mentions use cases such as verifying data integrity, creating fingerprints, and generating identifiers. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or provide explicit alternatives among the sibling tools, though no sibling is a direct competitor.

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