hash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses cost, free proof-of-work option, algorithm list, return format, and input size limit (100KB). This is good behavioral transparency for a simple hashing tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with cost, then function and details. Every sentence provides value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return format (hex and base64). It covers pricing, algorithm selection, and input constraints. For a simple hash tool, this is complete and requires no additional context.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by listing algorithm options (sha256 as default) and clarifying the text parameter's max size (100KB), going beyond the schema enum and description.

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 computes cryptographic hashes of text strings, lists specific algorithms (sha256, sha512, sha1, md5), and mentions return formats (hex and base64). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like http_check or whois.

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 pricing but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is implied for hashing text, but no exclusions or comparison to siblings are given.

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