stamp_file

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds context: it computes SHA-256, submits to four public OTS calendars, and confirms file contents are never sent. It also mentions returning a stamp ID for tracking, which goes beyond 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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides value: the one-step nature, the hash algorithm, calendar count, privacy guarantee, and output. No wasted words.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the process (hash, submission, privacy) and the return value (stamp ID). It is complete enough for the agent to understand what happens and what to expect.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the single 'path' parameter is fully described in the schema (absolute path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'file to stamp'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 hashes a local file and stamps it on Bitcoin in one step. It specifies the action (SHA-256 hash, submission to OTS calendars) and the resource (file). This distinguishes it from siblings like hash_file (which only hashes) and create_timestamp (which stamps a hash).

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 implies usage as a convenience tool when you want to hash and stamp in one step. It notes that file contents are not sent externally, which is a safety guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., using hash_file then create_timestamp separately).

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