hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions hashing text and algorithms but does not state output format (e.g., hex-encoded string), behavior for edge cases, or that it is a pure read-only operation. Minimal detail beyond the core action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, though it is sparse on details like output format.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., hex digest). It also mentions 'or other algorithms' which is not reflected in the enum, potentially misleading the agent. For a simple hash utility, the description is notably incomplete.

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% with descriptions for both 'text' and 'algorithm'. The description's mention of MD5, SHA-1, etc., largely repeats enum values and adds little beyond them. The phrase 'or other algorithms' may even imply a broader set than the schema allows, which could confuse.

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's function: 'Hash text' with a list of algorithms. It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like hmac (keyed hash) or encode (encoding).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hmac or encode. The description only states what it does, implying usage but offering no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues.

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