generate_hash

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description correctly implies a read-only operation (generating a hash has no side effects). The description adds value by listing supported algorithms, which is not fully in the schema (though the schema also lists them). It doesn't disclose details like output encoding (hex vs base64) or performance, but given the annotations cover safety, this is adequate. No contradiction.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists supported algorithms. It is concise with zero wasted words. It doesn't elaborate on usage or examples, but for a simple tool, this is well-structured. Slightly more could be added about output format, but not necessary.

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 pure hash generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and algorithms. The schema handles parameter details. It lacks information about return format (e.g., hex string) and edge cases (e.g., empty input), but these are minor and not critical for correct invocation. Overall, sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, meaning both 'input' and 'algorithm' are described in the schema. The description mentions 'input text' and 'cryptographic hash', which adds context to the 'input' parameter, but the 'algorithm' parameter is already fully listed in the schema. The description adds no new format or behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: generating a cryptographic hash of input text, and enumerates the supported algorithms. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_uuid, generate_password, and generate_lorem, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb 'generate' and resource 'cryptographic hash' are specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (when a hash of text is needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. Given the sibling list, the niche is clear—hashing is distinct from UUID/password/lorem generation. It lacks explicit guidance on algorithm choice (e.g., prefer SHA-256 for security), but the schema provides algorithm options.

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