hash_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: local execution ('Local crypto'), no network dependency, and hex output. It does not detail error behavior for invalid algorithm names, but for a simple hashing tool, this is adequate.

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?

One concise sentence with all essential information front-loaded. No wasted words, and the security/network note is a valuable extra.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary purpose, algorithms, output format, and local behavior. It doesn't need to explain return values since a hash string is self-evident.

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 description coverage is 50% (algo has description, text does not). The description compensates by clarifying 'Hash a string' implies the text parameter is the input to hash, and the algorithm list matches the schema. This adds meaning beyond the schema for the text parameter.

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 hashes a string using sha256/sha1/md5, specifying the exact algorithms and output format (hex). This distinguishes it from sibling utilities like base64_codec or diff_text, which perform different transformations.

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?

It provides clear context: this is a local hashing operation with no network usage, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the simple utility nature makes this less critical.

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