hash_game_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful detail that the hash follows Bob's GzsTool implementation, which signals output compatibility with that toolchain, but it does not disclose what the input value represents or the return format.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, and the most important information (it computes a hash) leads. The inline enumeration of modes makes it read awkwardly, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema utility the annotation coverage handles safety, and the mode values are recoverable from the description. Still missing is what 'value' should contain and what the returned hash looks like, which matters for a hashing tool with zero schema documentation.

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 coverage is 0% and the mode parameter has no enum, so the schema alone is silent. The description partially compensates by enumerating the four valid mode values (filename, extension, with_extension, legacy), but the required 'value' parameter — presumably a game file path — is never explained, and no default behavior is mentioned.

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 ('Calculate') and resource (hash of a game path) and names the underlying implementation, so an agent knows this is a deterministic hashing utility. It is not confused with any sibling, all of which are wiki/repo/job tools. The phrasing is slightly garbled by listing the mode values inline, but the purpose is legible.

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 tool, when another hashing approach is needed, or which mode to choose for a given task. The mode list is presented without any selection criteria, leaving the agent to guess why 'legacy' or 'with_extension' would be preferred.

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