hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral traits. It adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'computes hash' by emphasizing determinism and cross-machine reproducibility. It does not mention side effects, but hashing is inherently non-destructive, and the 'current code' phrasing implies a read-only operation on the repo's existing state.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and a valuable behavioral trait in the second. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('root hash + file count') and a key behavioral guarantee (determinism). It could mention the hash format or error handling for unenrolled repos, but the description is largely complete for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% because the single parameter 'repo' is fully described as 'name of an enrolled repo'. The description adds minor extra context by saying 'current code', which clarifies that the hash is computed from the repo's present state, but it does not significantly enhance the parameter's meaning 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 states the tool computes a 'deterministic root hash + file count' of 'an enrolled repo's current code', using a specific verb (compute/generate) and resource (repo code). It distinguishes itself from siblings like structure, diff, and status by focusing on a hash 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 tool's purpose is narrow and the deterministic property ('Same code → identical hash across machines') implies a usage case for verifying consistency across machines. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., diff or status), and no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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