gerar_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides none of it: nothing about determinism, output encoding (hex vs base64), whether the hash is salted, or what the default algorithm does. 'Gera hash de uma string' is only a restatement of the operation.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste and the operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is efficient because it says very little.

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, so the description should at minimum state the return format (hex digest) and note the default algorithm. For a hashing utility this omission leaves the agent guessing about the result it will receive.

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 100%, with both parameters documented and an enum plus default for 'algoritmo', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning (e.g., that the default is sha256), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource (generate a hash from a string), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like base64_utils or gerar_uuid, which are adjacent utility-style tools, so it misses the sibling-distinguishing criterion for a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as base64_utils or password_utils, and no prerequisites or context. The purpose is implied by the name, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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