chp_content_hash

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides meaningful detail: the exact algorithm (SHA-256), the canonicalization method (float-aware, CHP §3.1), and cross-implementation compatibility. It does not explicitly state the output format (e.g., hex string) or error behavior, but as a pure hashing function this is a minor gap.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core hashing algorithm and immediately provides the canonicalization details. Every phrase adds value, and there is no wasted or redundant text.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is nearly complete. It conveys the essential purpose, algorithm, and compatibility. The only gap is the lack of an explicit return type, but 'SHA-256' and 'digests' strongly imply a standard hash string, making this acceptable for the tool's low complexity.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'value' with a clear description ('JSON-serializable value to hash'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds further meaning by explaining that the value is processed via float-aware canonical JSON, which is additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as computing a SHA-256 hash over canonical JSON, specifying the canonicalization approach ('float-aware canonical JSON') and protocol reference (CHP §3.1). While it lacks an explicit action verb like 'compute' or 'return', the meaning is unambiguous and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which relate to spend gating and versioning.

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 for hashing JSON objects according to a specific protocol, and mentions compatibility with Python digests. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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