Fingerprint HTTP/2 preface

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 does disclose that the fingerprint is deterministic and the style is Akamai, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format, behavior on invalid input, or the exact structure of the 'preface frames' input.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every token contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 single-parameter calculation tool, the description covers the core purpose and input source, but it lacks information about the output shape, any constraints beyond the schema's maxLength, and edge-case behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should have clarified the return value.

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%. The description adds meaning by linking inputHex to 'captured HTTP/2 preface frames', but it does not specify the exact encoding (e.g., whether it is plain hex of the raw bytes) or whether it includes the connection preface and initial frames. It partially compensates but leaves ambiguity.

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 uses the specific verb 'Calculate' and clearly identifies the output as an 'Akamai-style deterministic fingerprint' and the input as 'captured HTTP/2 preface frames'. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like http2_frame_parse or proto_fingerprint.

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 clearly implies the use case: use when you have HTTP/2 preface frames and need an Akamai-style fingerprint. It gives clear context but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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