rea_patch_sha256

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait '只读' (read-only, no file mutation). However, it says nothing about error behavior (e.g., missing file), or the format of the computed hash, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the read-only trait and the core operation. Zero waste, though the terseness borders on under-specification.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core operation, but omits what is returned (the hash string/format) and any parameter or error handling detail. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that '文件' (file) is the input being hashed, without clarifying the format, path conventions, or whether directories are accepted. This is marginal guidance over an undocumented file_path parameter.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('计算文件 SHA-256' / compute file SHA-256), which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but no sibling performs hashing, so the purpose is inherently distinguishable. Slightly weaker because it doesn't name what it is not.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The '只读' qualifier hints at a non-mutating use case, but the agent is left to infer when hashing is appropriate versus the other rea_patch_* tools.

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