verify.hash_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It states the algorithm and input but does not mention output format, path resolution, whether the file must already exist, failure behavior, or the read-only nature of the operation.

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?

One clear sentence with zero filler. The verb, algorithm, and input scope are all front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no parameter docs, key invocation details are missing: expected return format, path semantics, and edge-case behavior. An agent can guess the tool's purpose from its name, but not all call requirements are grounded.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter. It adds that the path refers to an artifact or evidence file, but it does not clarify whether the path is workspace-relative, absolute, or evidence-store-relative, nor what file types are accepted.

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?

'Compute SHA-256' is a specific verb plus resource, and 'for a workspace artifact or evidence file' narrows the object type. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling verify.* tools, which are assertions/inspections rather than hashing.

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 the tool is used when an agent needs a SHA-256 digest of a file, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Since no sibling tool hashes files, the lack of exclusions is less harmful, yet the guidance still relies on inference.

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