generate_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does substantial work: it lists supported algorithms, output formats, and the exact return dict keys including cost_usd. It does not explore edge cases or security caveats, but for a pure hash function the operational behavior is clearly communicated.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses compact labeled sections for arguments and return values. Each line adds necessary information and none is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description documents the return values and keys, all parameters, defaults, and supported algorithms. For a stateless utility, this is enough for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by defining text, algorithm (with valid values and default), and encoding (with valid values and default). Every parameter is covered with meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 and object ('Hash text') and names it as a cryptographic hash function, immediately distinguishing it from sibling utilities like generate_password or generate_uuid. It enumerates the exact algorithm set, so an agent can tell this is the hash tool.

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 no guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It never names comparable tools such as encode_decode or jwt_decode, so the agent must infer usage from the name and first sentence.

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