hash_text

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation (hash with selected algorithm) but omits the output format (e.g., hex digest, return key), how empty or non-string inputs are handled, and that hashing is one-way. These are non-obvious details an agent may need when invoking the tool correctly.

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 eight-word sentence that places the action 'hash' up front. It is free of filler and every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and supported algorithms.

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 two-parameter utility with no annotations, the description plus schema covers parameters and available algorithms, but the absence of any mention of the return value is a notable gap. An agent cannot tell from the description or schema what shape the result will take, such as the field name for the digest.

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 input schema already documents both parameters completely (text and algorithm with enum values), so the baseline is 3. The description lists the same algorithms already present in the schema's enum and adds no new information about parameter constraints, encoding, or defaults beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with the verb 'hash' and the object 'text', naming the resource and operation. It further specifies three algorithms (MD5, SHA-256, SHA-512), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling utilities like base64, url_encode, and jwt, which perform encoding or signing rather than 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?

The description implies that the tool is for computing a hash of arbitrary text, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention that base64 or url_encode are for reversible encoding or that hashing is irreversible, so an agent must infer the appropriate choice from the tool's name and purpose alone.

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