Hash text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it specifies the exact output format (hex digest), the input encoding (UTF-8), and a security caveat warning that MD5/SHA-1 are unsuitable for security purposes.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and supported algorithms front-loaded and the caveat trailing as a short qualifier. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive utility with no output schema, the description states the input handling, available algorithms, output format, and the one meaningful caveat. There is nothing material an agent needs in order to call this correctly that is missing.

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 the description has to carry parameter meaning. It does add that the input is treated as UTF-8 and enumerates the acceptable algorithm values, but that list merely restates the schema enum, and it never explains the sha256 default or what happens if algorithm is omitted.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Hash") with a specific resource ("UTF-8 text") and names the five supported algorithms plus the output form (hex digest). It clearly distinguishes hashing from the nearby encoding/ID-generating siblings such as base64 and generate_uuid.

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 line "MD5 and SHA-1 are for checksums only, not security" gives useful algorithm-selection guidance, which is real usage advice. However, it never states when to pick this tool over a sibling like base64 (encoding) or generate_password, and it doesn't mention the default algorithm or when omitting it is fine. Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed.

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