hash_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It declares 'Has no side effects,' which is transparent. It also describes the output format. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a hash computation tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return type, side effects, and usage guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple hashing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters (via schema), usage guidelines, side effects, and return format. It is fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It mentions algorithms and default, but the schema already does that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: compute a cryptographic hash (SHA-256, SHA-1, or SHA-512) of any text string and return a lowercase hex string. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like base64_encode or uuid_generate, as it focuses on 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?

Explicitly states use cases (integrity checks, fingerprinting, deterministic IDs) and a critical non-use case (password storage) with an alternative (bcrypt, argon2). This provides clear guidance for when to use or avoid the tool.

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