eth_hash

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a computation (implying no side effects), but lacks details on error handling, output format, or constraints. The description is adequate but not rich enough to fully inform an agent about edge cases.

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 sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description should provide more context about parameter usage and return value. While the purpose is clear, the lack of parameter documentation and output details makes it only moderately complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'kind' parameter by naming the enum values, but provides no explanation for 'data', 'input_format', or 'output_format'. The default values for input_format and output_format are not mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance on these parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool computes Ethereum hashes, specifying three specific hash types (keccak256, eip191, eip712). The verb 'Compute' and resource 'hash' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from other hash tools by focusing on Ethereum-specific hashes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'hash' (generic hashing), 'encode', or 'decode'. The description lists the hash types but does not explain under what circumstances each should be chosen or when an alternative tool is preferred.

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