sha384sum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, making the 'Read-only, no side effects' statement redundant. The description adds value by noting the return format ('Returns JSON with per-file hash values'), but this is minimal beyond the annotation.

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 just three sentences: function declaration, read-only and output note, and usage guidance. It is efficient, front-loaded, and every sentence provides necessary information without verbosity.

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 read-only hash utility with one parameter and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, output format, and use case. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but these are less critical given the tool's trivial nature.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the 'paths' parameter, fully documenting it. The description does not add further meaning beyond restating that files or stdin are accepted.

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 explicitly states 'Compute SHA-384 hash digests of files or stdin', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes SHA-384 from siblings by specifying higher security margin and referencing alternative hash 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 advises use for 'cryptographic integrity verification with higher security margin than SHA-256', providing when-to-use context. It suggests alternatives via 'See also sha256sum, sha512sum, hash', but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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