get_rails_hash

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that the value changes iff the registry contents change and mentions the sign-off process is CLI-only. The read-only nature is implicit for a digest, and it adds meaningful context about the hash's role.

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 compact sentences with no redundant text. The core output is front-loaded, followed by the change condition and sign-off context; every sentence earns its place.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what it returns, when it changes, and why it matters. No gaps apparent.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so baseline 4 applies. The description correctly omits parameter-specific details.

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?

Clearly states the output: a 12-hex sha256 digest of the action registry plus entry count. Distinct from siblings like classify_action or evaluate_budget, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides context that the hash changes when registry contents change and that it is the value recorded in the audit ledger by human sign-off, note that sign-off is CLI-only and never an MCP tool. This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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