crypto_hash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it generates hashes but omits critical details like output format (e.g., hex or base64), that it is a deterministic read-only computation, or any constraints on input size. The agent lacks sufficient behavioral context.

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 short (two sentences plus a reference) and front-loaded with 'Hash Generation.' It avoids excessive detail. However, 'Menu ID: hash' is an implementation artifact that adds no value for the agent.

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 has 3 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the output structure, possible values for outputFormat, or how to specify multiple algorithms. The redirect to describe_tool indicates the description itself is insufficient for an informed selection.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description fails to explain the 'text', 'algorithms', and 'outputFormat' parameters beyond listing algorithm names in prose. It does not describe expected formats or enum values, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct inputs.

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 it generates hashes from text and lists supported algorithms (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, etc.). This gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like crypto_checksum or crypto_hmac, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 mentions using hashes for 'data integrity verification and digital signatures,' providing context. It points to describe_tool for full guidance but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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