calculate_file_hash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover critical behaviors: whether it reads file contents (likely yes), error handling for missing files, performance implications for large files, or output format. For a tool that interacts with files, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish ('Calcular hash de un archivo') that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., hash string format), error conditions, or behavioral details. For a tool with 2 parameters and file system interaction, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'file_path' as the file path and 'algorithm' with enum values and default. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain hash algorithm differences or file path requirements). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 'Calcular hash de un archivo' clearly states the action (calculate hash) and resource (a file), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from 'generate_hash' (a sibling tool), leaving ambiguity about when to use one versus the other. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_hash' or 'read_file'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), context for choosing hash algorithms, or comparisons with sibling tools. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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