call_native_by_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the allowlist constraint, but does not mention whether calls are destructive, read-only, or any other side effects. While the gating is helpful, additional safety or behavioral info is missing.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, immediately followed by critical constraint and recommendation. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description omits essential parameter details and behavioral context beyond gating. The agent would struggle to correctly invoke the tool without additional parameter documentation.

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%, yet the description only implicitly explains the 'hash' parameter via 'by raw hash'. The 'args' and 'return_type' parameters are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without necessary context for correct usage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calls a native by raw hash, uses 'power-user escape hatch' to indicate advanced usage, and distinguishes from sibling call_native by emphasizing raw hash vs name.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is allowlist-gated and refuses any hash not in the verified DB, and directly recommends using call_native(name) instead, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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