hash_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states creation but doesn't mention side effects, memory, or that the hash object can be updated. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief, omitting critical details. It achieves conciseness at the expense of completeness.

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 3 parameters, no schema coverage, and an output schema that is not explained, the description fails to convey the overall purpose and usage flow. It does not clarify what a 'hash object' is or how it can be used subsequently.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain acceptable values for 'algorithm', format of 'data', or the effect of the 'hex' boolean.

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 'Create' and the resource 'hash object', and notes it uses any algorithm. This is clear, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like hash_md5 or hash_sha256, which also create hash objects but for specific algorithms.

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 generic tool versus the specific algorithm-sibling tools. The description lacks context for choosing this over alternatives.

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