sha224sum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and description reinforces 'Read-only, no side effects.' It adds beyond annotations by noting returns JSON with per-file hash values. Does not contradict annotations.

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 dense sentences plus a brief list of alternatives. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence contributes value; no wasted words.

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 6 parameters fully described in schema, no output schema, and annotations covering readonly, the description provides essential context: return format (JSON per-file), use cases, and alternatives. Complete for an agent to use 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%, so parameters are fully documented. Description adds no further parameter details beyond mentioning JSON output. 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?

Description clearly states 'Compute SHA-224 hash digests of files or stdin' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like sha256sum and sha512sum by noting smaller digest size and lower security margin.

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 tells when to use (cryptographic integrity verification with smaller digest size) and when not (use 'sha512sum' for highest strength), and references alternatives 'sha256sum' and 'hash'. No ambiguity.

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