hash_file_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose key behavioral traits: return format (hex, binary?), allowed algorithm values, error handling, or side effects. The one-line description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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 extremely concise (5 words) but under-specified for a tool with two parameters and many siblings. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential information; here it is too brief to be useful.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It omits explanation of input format, algorithm options, and usage context. For a tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this minimal description is far from adequate.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. However, it does not clarify what 'data' represents (file content? path?) or what 'algorithm' accepts (only default sha256 shown in schema). No enum or acceptable values are given, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states 'Compute hash of a file-like object', which is a verb+resource indicating hash computation. However, it's vague about what 'file-like object' means (e.g., file path, bytes) and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like hash_sha256 or hash_md5, which likely have fixed algorithms. The purpose is clear enough but lacks specificity.

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 the many algorithm-specific sibling tools (e.g., hash_sha256, hash_md5). The description does not mention alternatives or context for selection, leaving the agent without decision support.

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