calcular_hash

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses basic behavior (hash calculation) but omits details like file existence requirements, permissions, size limits, or output format. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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?

Description is concise with two sentences and an Args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary details.

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?

Adequate for a file hash tool with output schema present. However, it lacks details on error handling, execution context, and does not leverage the output schema to explain return values.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning: 'ruta_archivo' as path and 'algoritmo' with options. It clarifies purpose beyond schema titles but does not mention default value.

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 calculates hash (sha256, sha1, md5) of a file for integrity verification. It distinguishes from sibling 'calcular_hash_texto' by specifying files as input.

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 implies usage for file integrity verification but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use. The context is clear, but exclusions are missing.

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