compute_action_ref

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

Discloses that it computes a deterministic hash (SHA-256) with no side effects, and explains the implication for duplicate detection. Without annotations, this effectively communicates the stateless, pure computation behavior.

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 efficient sentences: first states the operation, second gives functional context. No fluff, front-loaded with core action.

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?

Describes the computational purpose and deduplication implication, but lacks return format (expecting a string hash) and normalization details for timestamp. Adequate for a simple hash tool, but gaps exist.

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 description lists the hash components (agentId, actionType, scope, normalized timestamp) but does not explain each parameter's meaning or format beyond what is in the schema. With low schema coverage (25%), the description partially compensates but leaves ambiguity (e.g., agent_id format, scope_required 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?

Clearly states it computes a SHA-256 hash of specified components to create an action_ref, and explains its purpose for deduplication. Distinguishes it from sibling tools like aps_compute_attribution_action_ref by focusing on general identity.

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?

Implies usage for deduplication ('two receipts with the same action_ref describe the same request'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions.

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