hash_blake2b

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

Given no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Compute' without indicating whether this is a read-only operation (likely), but no mention of side effects, allowed input formats, or output characteristics. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 very concise—a single phrase. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, but could include more detail without becoming verbose. The structure is front-loaded and clear.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is not required to detail return values. However, for a tool among many hash siblings, it lacks context about the nature of the hash, constraints, or typical use, making it minimally 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?

The schema for 'data' and 'digest_size' lacks descriptions. The description adds minimal value by noting '512-bit' output, implying digest_size default 64 corresponds to 64 bytes, but does not clarify unit or data format. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 verb 'Compute' and the specific hash algorithm 'BLAKE2b' with output size '512-bit'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like hash_sha256 by algorithm name, but does not elaborate on use cases or why one might choose this over other hashes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hash_sha256, hash_sha3_512, etc. The description lacks context on the algorithm's properties (e.g., performance, security) or scenarios where BLAKE2b is appropriate.

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