compute_action_ref

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose determinism, timestamp normalization, and the equality property. However, it omits important canonicalization details (e.g., whether scope_required is order-sensitive) and says nothing about side effects or the returned representation.

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 tight sentences front-load the core algorithm and then state the key semantic guarantee. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description never states what the tool returns (e.g., a hex digest string) or how the action_ref is represented. It also leaves canonical serialization unspecified, which is critical for a deterministic identity function.

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?

Despite only 25% schema coverage, the description maps all four parameters into the hash inputs (agentId, actionType, scope, normalized timestamp) and the schema adds timestamp format rules. The camelCase 'agentId' mismatch with schema 'agent_id' is minor but could briefly confuse an agent.

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?

States a specific operation (compute a content-addressed request identity) and gives the exact hashing inputs, which clearly distinguishes it from the numerous sibling compute/attestation tools. The equivalence sentence further pins down what an action_ref means.

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 the tool is used to compare or correlate receipts ('two receipts with the same action_ref describe the same request'), but it never states explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, nor names alternatives. Usage guidance is left for the agent to infer.

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