agent-tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the raw bytes reading behavior and supported algorithms, but omits critical behavioral details like the return format (hex string, binary?), error handling for missing files, or idempotency characteristics.

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 efficiently structured: purpose statement first, followed by behavioral detail, then parameter options. Zero redundancy—every sentence provides distinct value not found in the structured fields.

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 tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the core function and key behavioral trait (raw bytes). It loses one point for failing to describe the return value format, which is necessary information given the absence of an output schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces the algorithm options and default, but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 'Computes a hash checksum of a file,' providing a specific verb (computes) and resource (hash checksum) that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read' (content retrieval), 'file_info' (metadata), or 'copy' (duplication).

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 provides implied usage context through the 'raw bytes (no encoding conversion)' note, suggesting when to use this over text-processing tools. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the many file-related siblings.

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