hash_sha3_224

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the output format, input encoding constraints, or that the operation is deterministic and side-effect-free. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is slightly too minimal given the need for parameter clarification. Still, it earns a high conciseness score for avoiding fluff.

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 does not reference the return value or any constraints (e.g., input length limits). For a simple tool, it covers the basic action but lacks completeness for an agent to invoke without additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter 'data'. The description 'Compute SHA3-224 hash' does not explain what 'data' expects (e.g., raw bytes, hex string, base64). This is a significant gap for an agent to use correctly.

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 action ('Compute') and the specific resource ('SHA3-224 hash'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling hash tools. The verb and resource are explicit.

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 hash variant over siblings like SHA3-256 or SHA3-512. There is no mention of use cases, security levels, or comparisons.

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