crypto_ripemd

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states that hashes are generated from text, but lacks disclosure of input constraints (e.g., text encoding, size limits), expected output format, error behavior, or whether the operation is deterministic. Minimal 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 relatively short, but includes unnecessary elements like 'Menu ID: ripemd.' and a reference to describe_tool. It could be more streamlined by removing these and focusing on essential 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?

For a tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like, how to handle invalid inputs, or provide enough detail for correct invocation. The reference to external guidance is insufficient.

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 description must explain parameters. It mentions algorithm variants (RIPEMD-128, etc.) but does not clarify the 'algorithms' parameter values, the 'text' format, or the 'outputFormat' possibilities. The description adds little beyond the schema structure.

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 generates RIPEMD hashes (128, 160, 256, 320) from text, and provides context about its use in Bitcoin address derivation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond the specific hash name, and the instruction to use describe_tool is non-standard.

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 only hints at Bitcoin-related usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like other hash generators (e.g., SHA, MD5). No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names are provided.

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