sha1sum

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

Declares read-only, no side effects, and JSON return format. While annotations already provide readOnlyHint, the description adds context about the return format and lack of side effects, which is consistent.

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 concise sentences: purpose, behavior, and usage guidance. No redundant information; front-loaded with key action. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover readOnlyHint, the description sufficiently covers inputs, usage, and return format. It mentions alternatives and caveats, making it fairly complete.

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% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual params beyond mentioning 'files or stdin', but it does not need to given the schema. No contradiction.

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 computes SHA-1 hash digests of files or stdin, and distinguishes it from cryptographic siblings like sha256sum and b2sum by noting SHA-1's broken status for security purposes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (basic integrity verification with legacy systems) and when not to use (security-critical applications), and names alternatives (sha256sum, b2sum).

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