Compute and compare a file checksum

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the input constraint (regular file, ≤32 MiB) and the important epistemic limitation of a successful match, which the annotations do not convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, and the second sentence is a substantive caveat rather than filler. No redundancy with the title or schema.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description supplies the needed behavioral context; there is no output schema, so return-value explanation is not owed. It could mention what is returned when expected is supplied (e.g., match/mismatch), but the gap is minor.

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 all three parameters (path, expected, algorithm) are already documented in the schema, including the accepted expected-digest formats and the enum values. The description only restates the algorithm options and the size limit, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Computes the SHA-256 or SHA-512 digest of a local file') plus the optional comparison behavior, and scopes the input (regular file, up to 32 MiB). Nothing about it could be confused with the redaction, secret-scanning, or webhook siblings.

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 implies the use case (hashing a file and optionally checking it against an expected digest) and adds a trust caveat about what a match proves, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives or what the prerequisites are. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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