nexus_get_file_hashes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds that this uses v2 GraphQL and lists the return fields, which is useful context. It does not disclose batch size limits, invalid-hash behavior, or authentication requirements, but for a safe read operation with rich annotations this is acceptable.

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 very concise: a single clear purpose sentence followed by a compact return-format list. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It defines the operation and the response shape. The only notable gap is lack of distinction from the very similar sibling nexus_search_by_md5, which an agent might need to choose correctly, but the simple schema and annotations keep this from being a serious omission.

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 the md5s parameter already described as 'Comma-separated MD5 hashes.' The tool description adds the word 'batch' but no additional format details such as case sensitivity, whitespace handling, or maximum number of hashes. This is a standard baseline case where 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 names a specific operation and resource: given MD5 hashes, find matching mod files. It clearly communicates the reverse lookup direction (hashes in, file metadata out), which distinguishes it from names like nexus_get_file_hash that could imply returning hashes. The 'batch' qualifier further distinguishes it from single-hash tools.

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 when to use the tool: when you have a batch of MD5 hashes to resolve to file details. However, it does not explicitly address alternatives like nexus_search_by_md5 or nexus_get_file_hash, and it gives no 'when not to use' guidance. The intended use case is inferable but not explicitly routed.

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