Hash

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 states the core behavior and output format, but does not mention input encoding, digest casing, determinism, or the one-way nature of hashing. These are minor for a simple pure function, but some behavioral context is absent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no filler and every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a simple, stateless tool with a complete input schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and output format. It is slightly light on edge-case behavior, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'input' is the string and 'algo' is md5 or sha256, but adds little beyond the schema. The phrase 'hex digest' is the only extra semantic hint.

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 states a specific verb ('Compute'), the exact algorithms (md5/sha256), and the output format ('hex digest'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like base64, slugify, and text_stats.

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 makes the tool's scope self-evident: use this when an md5 or sha256 hex digest is needed. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but for a narrowly scoped utility this is not a significant gap.

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