owp_get_schema_digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool is read-only ('Get') and explains the versioning constraint, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or any edge cases. The output schema covers return format, but other behavioral traits remain unspecified.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence context/constraint, and a clean Args list. There is no redundant information, and the key details are front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema and sibling tools available, the description provides sufficient information for a simple getter: purpose, versioning policy, and parameter semantics. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit enumeration of the five object types, but that may be intentionally left to discovery tools.

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 input schema has no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that object_type is 'one of the five schema-bearing object types' and that version defaults to '0.1', which adds meaning. However, it fails to list the five valid object types or provide enums, leaving the agent to discover them via other tools.

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 'Get the frozen SHA-256 digest of an authoritative JSON Schema' with a specific verb and resource. The terms 'frozen' and 'authoritative' differentiate it from siblings like owp_get_schema (likely retrieving the schema) and owp_compute_digest (likely computing a digest from arbitrary data).

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?

The description provides context by calling the digest a 'protocol-review anchor' and noting that changing it requires an explicit version-bump decision, implying use during protocol review. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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