sigmodx_hash_inputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deterministic SHA-256 method and the critical privacy trait that the payload is never sent. This is concise but informative for a simple hashing tool.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the action and method. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description explains input and process but does not mention the output format or return value, which is a gap since no output schema exists. For a hashing tool, the agent needs to know what the tool returns.

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?

The schema already covers the required parameter 'payload' with 100% description coverage, so the description adds no new info beyond stating what is hashed. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 hashes an input payload using SHA-256, emphasizing the payload is never sent to Sigmodx. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on reliability, logging decisions, and attestation verification.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied as a hashing utility, but no exclusions or context for choosing it over other tools are given.

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