File Checksum

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

The annotations set readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a read-only operation. The description declares the tool calculates checksums, which is consistent. It adds context about supported algorithms beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose whether the tool can access files outside a sandbox or if it has side effects, though the annotation covers read-only nature.

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 of 8 words in German, which is concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without waste. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity, but the simplicity is effective.

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 there is no output schema and the operation is simple (read-only checksum calculation), the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose and supported algorithms. However, it lacks details about error handling (e.g., if file not found) or return value format, which might be needed for completeness. The complexity is low, so a 3 is adequate.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage (descriptions for file_path, algorithm, compare). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain the 'compare' parameter behavior. According to rules, with >80% schema coverage, baseline is 3. No extra value is added.

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 calculates checksums with four specific algorithms (MD5/SHA1/SHA256/SHA512). It uses a specific verb ('Berechnet') and resource ('Prüfsummen...für Dateien'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'fc_cleanup_file' or 'fc_validate_json', but the sibling list includes many unrelated tools, so the purpose is adequately distinct.

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 implies usage for computing file hashes but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fc_file_info' or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., file existence) or exclusions. The context is minimally implied.

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