hash_sha1

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Compute SHA1 hash', failing to mention output format (e.g., hex string), determinism, or side effects. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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 (4 words) but achieves this by omitting necessary information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, sacrificing functional clarity for brevity.

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 many sibling hash tools, no annotations, and an output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's role or how it differs from alternatives. It provides no context for selection or invocation, making it nearly useless for an agent.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation for the 'data' or 'usedforsecurity' parameters. The default of 'usedforsecurity=true' lacks any context, making it impossible for an agent to understand its purpose.

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 'Compute SHA1 hash' states the specific verb and resource (SHA1 hash), distinguishing it from siblings by algorithm name. However, it lacks any additional context about what the hash is computed from or the nature of the result, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 other hash algorithms (e.g., SHA256, MD5). The parameter 'usedforsecurity' hints at security implications, but the description does not explain when or why this tool should be chosen.

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