sha256_manifest

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It explains the tool computes a hash (read-only), describes the output format including path, size, and sha256, and notes its role in the patching process. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 docstring format (Args, Returns, usage note). Every sentence adds value: the core purpose, parameter definition, return structure, and use case. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and context signals, the description covers all necessary information: input, output, and usage context. There are no gaps; it is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter. It documents 'path: file to hash' explicitly, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. The description covers the single parameter comprehensively.

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 SHA-256 manifest of a path, specifying the verb 'Compute' and the resource 'SHA-256 manifest'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (apply_patch, check_patch, restore_original) by explicitly tying into the patching workflow as a prerequisite step.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to record the canonical SHA-256 of the original binary before any patch is applied', providing clear guidance on when to use it. It also connects to restore_original, indicating the hash is used as a rollback key, which helps differentiate from siblings.

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