content_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key trait: volatile blocks and scripts are removed before hashing. However, it does not state whether the hash is deterministic, what algorithm is used, what the return value looks like, or whether the operation has side effects.

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, zero filler. The operation is first, the use case second. Every word earns its place.

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?

Although the tool's concept is simple, the missing parameter explanations and lack of any return-value description leave an agent under-informed. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least connect strip_classes/strip_patterns to the stripping behavior and indicate the type of result produced.

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 mentions none of the three parameters by name. 'body' is only indirectly implied by 'content of a page', and 'strip_classes' and 'strip_patterns' — which presumably customize the volatile-block removal — are completely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their meaning.

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 and resource ('Hash the meaningful content of a page') with a defining behavioral qualifier ('with volatile blocks and scripts removed'). It also gives the outcome ('tell a real edit from a rebuild'), which clearly differentiates it from the sibling check_* 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 phrase 'Use it to tell a real edit from a rebuild' gives a concrete, actionable scenario for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough that an agent can judge when to reach for it.

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