crypto_hash_id

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

With no annotations, description provides basic behavioral context (matching by length and format, possible algorithms) but lacks details on output behavior (e.g., single vs multiple matches, error handling, confidence indicators).

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, first is a clear label, second explains the mechanism. No redundant information; every word is functional.

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?

Lacks full context: no output specification (e.g., return format), no error handling details, and no mention of edge cases. With no output schema, the description should be more explicit about what the tool returns.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, description adds value by explaining the input's purpose and listing algorithms checked, going beyond the schema's minimal 'Hash string to identify' description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool identifies hash types by matching input against known patterns, with specific algorithm examples (MD5, SHA-1, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like crypto_decode (for decoding) and crypto_entropy (for entropy analysis) by focusing on hash pattern identification.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention limitations or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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