compute_action_ref

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hash components, timestamp normalization, and equivalence property, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, or explicitly state that it is a pure/deterministic function, though that is largely inferable.

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 two sentences, direct, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 hash-computation tool, the description states the core behavior and key property (same action_ref = same request). Without an output schema, it does not explicitly state the return type, but 'SHA-256' implies a string output, making it reasonably complete.

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 low (25%, only timestamp has a description). The description compensates by mapping agentId, actionType, scope, and normalized timestamp to the hash formula, clarifying how each contributes. Yet it does not elaborate on what scope_required means or other input semantics.

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 clearly states the tool computes a content-addressed request identity (SHA-256 of agentId + actionType + scope + normalized timestamp), providing a specific verb and resource. It explains the output's significance. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like aps_compute_attribution_action_ref.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The deduplication property ('Two receipts with the same action_ref describe the same request') implies a use case but is not framed as a usage condition or alternative exclusion.

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