Hash Text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond this: the warning that a model will hallucinate a hash, and the security caveat that md5/sha1 are not for security. No contradiction with annotations — 'compute a digest' is consistent with a non-mutating, idempotent operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the critical behavioral warning and algorithm guidance. Efficient and each sentence earns its place. The trailing web URL is minor noise but does not detract meaningfully.

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 three-parameter digest tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and algorithm security. The return format is not stated, but the output of a hash tool is self-evident (the digest string). The encoding parameter is the only notable gap, making this solid but not perfect.

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%, so the description carries the burden of parameter meaning. It does explain the algorithm parameter's security tradeoffs (md5/sha1 vs. secure options) and names the algorithms, adding real value. However, the encoding parameter (hex/base64) is left unexplained, relying on the enum names being self-explanatory. Partial compensation for the 0% coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Compute a cryptographic digest of text.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like base64_encode, hmac_sign, and generate_uuid, so an agent can select it correctly without inspecting schemas.

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 gives a strong when-to-use directive: 'A model cannot calculate a hash — it will confidently invent one — so always use this tool.' It also provides algorithm-selection guidance (md5/sha1 for checksums and legacy interop, not for security). It does not explicitly name sibling exclusions (e.g., hmac_sign for keyed digests), but the core usage context is clear.

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