micropython_hash_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the algorithm is currently limited to sha256, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the board must be connected, how the hash is transported from the device, or what happens on failure. The timeout parameter is described in terms of the raw REPL cycle, giving some operational context.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by an Args section that cleanly documents each parameter. No superfluous text. Slightly structured as docstring-style, which is appropriate.

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 that an output schema exists (so return value need not be explained), the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It could mention board connection prerequisites or error handling, but for a straightforward hashing tool it is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaning for all three parameters: path is the target file, algorithm is limited to sha256 currently, and timeout is the overall timeout for code submission to Raw REPL completion. This adds valuable context beyond the bare 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?

The description explicitly states a specific verb+resource: 'MicroPython ボード上のファイルのハッシュを返す' (return the hash of a file on the MicroPython board). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like read_file, stat_path, or download_file by the hash-returning operation.

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 (compute a file's hash) but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like reading the file locally and hashing, or how it differs from stat_path. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative suggestions are provided.

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