hash

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

The description states 'Read-only, no side effects' and 'Returns JSON with per-file digests and byte counts,' which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words. Core action first, then behavioral notes, then usage guidance. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose, behavior, output format, usage guidance, and alternatives, making it fully self-contained.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but the description groups algorithms into families (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2, BLAKE2b) and clarifies that paths can be files or '-' for stdin, adding semantic value beyond the schema.

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 it computes hash digests with selectable algorithms (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2, BLAKE2b). It explicitly differentiates from siblings like md5sum, sha256sum by noting fixed-algorithm workflows should use those dedicated tools.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use when you need flexible algorithm selection from a single tool. Not for fixed-algorithm workflows — use dedicated tools.' It also lists alternative sibling tools.

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