Compute CRC-32

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable behavioral detail such as streaming in 1 MiB chunks, continuation via seed, and comparison via expect that produces matches. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main function, but it repeats seed/expect behavior also present in the schema and includes an optional implementation detail (slice-by-8) that adds little operational value. Still well-structured and appropriately brief.

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?

Covers algorithm, input forms, chunking, stream limits, and cross-check use case, but the schema has no required fields and the description never states that exactly one of text, dataBase64, or sourcePath must be provided. This is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover all five parameters with exclusivity and size constraints, so the bar for additional meaning is high. The prose adds context by explaining seed as chunk continuation and expect as a compare-with-known-value, but most parameter semantics are already present in the schema.

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?

States the tool computes the IEEE 802.3 CRC-32 checksum of inline bytes/text or a sandbox file, with a concrete use case for cross-checking list_zip_entries data against a disk file. The title reinforces the action, and the algorithm/resource scope are unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit use case ('Use it to cross-check an entry's crc32 from list_zip_entries against a file on disk') and describes how to chain chunks with seed and assert with expect. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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