hash_text

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses the behavior: compute a hash, algorithm options, and return format (algorithm + hex digest). No side effects or permissions needed, so adequate for a pure function.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and existence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. No gaps for an AI agent.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the text parameter as the string to hash and listing the algorithm options (md5, sha1, sha256, sha512) with a default. This compensates fully.

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 computes a cryptographic hash of a string, which is a specific verb and resource. It lists the supported algorithms and default, and it is distinct from sibling tools that handle IOCs and entropy.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but sibling tools are clearly unrelated (IOC handling, CIDR), so it is evident this tool is for hashing strings. Context is clear.

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