Compute Attribution Action Ref

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine semantic context beyond them: the value is a deterministic content-addressed sha256 anchor that the four axis projections bind to, which is not inferable from structured fields.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core definition front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds something, though the third sentence blends usage guidance into the purpose block.

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 four-parameter operation with an undocumented nested object and no output schema, the description omits how the action tuple is assembled and what role agentId, nonce, or params play. It names the output format (hex sha256) but leaves the inputs effectively unspecified.

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% across four required parameters, including a nested 'params' object, and the description never enumerates or explains them. The loose phrase 'action tuple' gestures at the four fields but gives no mapping to agentId/actionType/params/nonce, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Derive') and output resource ('action_ref (hex sha256) for an action tuple'), and the follow-up sentence explains what the value is. It only loosely differentiates from the similarly-named sibling compute_action_ref, differentiating instead against 'constructing the full primitive'.

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 'Useful for indexing primitives by action without constructing the full primitive' implies a use case and a contrast with primitive construction, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling is named to route between it and compute_action_ref.

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