Hash text

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds important behavioral details: constant-time comparison for verification, and a caveat that md5/sha1 are for interoperability only. This fully discloses key behaviors beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence covers purpose and options, the second adds the verification feature. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 description lacks information about the return value or output format, which is critical since no output schema exists. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., hex string, boolean for verification). This gap makes it incomplete for an agent to interpret results.

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 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what is in parameter descriptions, such as the HMAC computation when key is provided, which is already stated in the schema.

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 it computes a cryptographic digest or HMAC of a string, specifies supported algorithms and encodings, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which do not perform hashing. This provides a specific verb+resource combination.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. While it's implied for hashing tasks, no comparisons or exclusions are given. It is adequate but lacks guidance on selection relative to siblings.

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