generate_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 does not explain the behavior of the 'all' algorithm option (e.g., whether it returns a single string or a collection of hashes) or the output format (e.g., hex encoding). This leaves ambiguity for non-trivial usage.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and supported algorithms. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and effective.

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 hash generation tool, the description covers the core purpose. However, it omits details about the 'all' algorithm option, which is a notable feature, and does not specify the return format. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate for typical cases but incomplete for edge scenarios.

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 documents the 'algorithm' parameter with allowed values, and the description reinforces these by listing MD5/SHA1/SHA256/SHA512. The 'text' parameter is indirectly described as 'hash of text', but the description adds no explanation of the 'all' option's effect. With 50% schema coverage, the description provides some value but does not fully compensate for the gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and clearly identifies the resource as 'hash of text' with explicit algorithm names (MD5/SHA1/SHA256/SHA512). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_password and generate_uuid, making the purpose unambiguous.

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. It simply states what the tool does, without any contextual cues, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no mention of use cases like verifying data integrity or comparing hashes.

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