hash_shake_128

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'variable length', omitting key traits like that output_length controls byte count, that data is the input, or that it's a cryptographic hash. No side effects or dangers are mentioned.

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, very concise and front-loaded with the action. It could benefit from additional structure (e.g., listing parameters), but it is not verbose.

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 existence of an output schema, return values need not be explained, but the description fails to provide essential behavioral context like the nature of the hash, default output length, or any limitations. For a tool with no annotations and 2 parameters, it is incomplete.

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 description's mention of 'variable length' provides some context for the output_length parameter, adding value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it does not explain the data parameter meaning or the units for output_length, leaving gaps.

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 identifies the tool as computing SHAKE-128, an extendable-output function, and mentions variable-length output. This distinguishes it from fixed-length hash siblings like hash_sha256, but does not explicitly differentiate from hash_shake_256 beyond algorithm name.

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 siblings. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this algorithm is preferred.

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