util_hash

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 the hashing algorithms and that it hashes a string. Missing details include whether the output is hex-encoded, case sensitivity, error handling for invalid strings, or that it is a pure function. The description is insufficient for accurate agent reasoning.

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 short sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded, but it lacks any structure or elaboration that would help the agent. For a tool with a complex input schema, this conciseness sacrifices 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 lack of output schema, the need for algorithm specification, and the free-form input object, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to choose an algorithm, what the return value looks like, or any example usage. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly.

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 sole parameter 'arguments' is an object with 'additionalProperties: true', but the description says 'Hash a string', which implies a single string input but does not specify how to structure the object (e.g., property name 'string' or 'input'). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no semantic guidance, leaving the agent to guess the required format.

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 tool hashes a string with SHA-256, SHA-1, or MD5. The verb 'hash' and resource 'string' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like util_base64 and util_json_validate. However, it does not clarify that the input schema accepts an object rather than a direct string, creating a slight mismatch.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give any context about prerequisites or constraints. An agent has no help deciding when this tool is appropriate.

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