hash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details special behaviors: length required for shake_*, key for blake2b/blake2s, seed for xxh*/fnv1a_*, and that CRC/fast hashes also output integer value. It does not mention side effects or authorization, but for a hash function these are minimal.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose. The use of parentheticals and line breaks helps readability, but some extraneous details could be streamlined.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers most important behavioral aspects (special parameter dependencies, additional output for CRC/fast). However, it omits explanation of the output_format parameter and the general return structure, which are needed for full completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the purpose of three parameters (length, key, seed) but does not describe data, algorithm, input_format, or output_format. While it adds context beyond the schema's enum lists, it leaves several parameters undocumented.

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 that the tool computes cryptographic, CRC, or fast non-crypto digests of bytes. It uses specific verbs ('Compute') and resource ('digest of bytes'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like eth_hash by covering general hashing algorithms.

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 usage for general hashing but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eth_hash or encode/decode. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use information is given.

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