calculate_hashes_tool

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the conditional 'SSDEEP (if available)' which hints at environment-dependent behavior, but does not disclose output format, error handling for missing files, permission requirements, or performance implications. The lack of annotations makes this less transparent than it could be.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately listing the hash algorithms. Every word is useful; no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 (one parameter) and has an output schema listed in the context, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key algorithms and notes the conditional ssdeep. It could mention whether hashes are returned as a single object or separate fields, but that is likely captured in the output schema. Overall, adequate.

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 provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (file_path) with a description 'Path to the file'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not elevate it.

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 calculates multiple hash values for a file, then enumerates the exact algorithms (MD5, SHA1, SHA256, SHA512, SSDEEP). This is a specific verb+resource and is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on parsing browser data or scanning files via VirusTotal.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it or when to prefer another tool. Since no other hashing tool exists among siblings, the use case is implied but not stated. It would benefit from a phrase like 'Use this for file integrity checks or quick hash computation.'

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