go_sum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'returns the checksum database entry' but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, network dependency, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with essential information. No redundant or extraneous text. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simple lookup tool with 2 well-documented parameters, the description provides adequate context. However, the lack of output schema means the return value is only vaguely described ('entry'), which could be more precise.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Look up'), the resource ('Go module version in the checksum database'), and the purpose ('for hash verification'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like go_module and go_version by specifying the checksum database context.

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 description implies usage for hash verification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like go_module or go_version. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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