analyze-hash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It truthfully reveals the optional VirusTotal query, which is a meaningful external network behavior. However, it does not clarify how the 'optional' is triggered given that the schema only contains one required hash parameter, nor does it explain behavior for unrecognized hashes or whether both outputs are always returned.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the optional secondary behavior with no redundant words.

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 itself is simple and the one parameter is fully documented, but the ambiguous 'optionally query VirusTotal' behavior is not explained. With no output schema and no option param in the schema, an agent cannot tell exactly when the VirusTotal query occurs or what the return shape will be, making the descition incomplete for fully informed 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% and the single 'hash' parameter is already well documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning example hash types, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verbs 'identify' and 'query' with concrete resources: hash algorithm type and VirusTotal reputation/threat intelligence. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like check-cve, whois-lookup, and scan-headers, which address different domains.

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 a clear use case: analyzing a hash to determine its algorithm and optionally enriching it with VirusTotal data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for similar tasks, so it falls just short of a 5.

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