Checksum and Verify Pack

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

With sparse annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects and outputs. It states that 'action=compute walks a path and writes a tdmcp-checksums.json manifest' and 'action=verify re-hashes files and reports ok/mismatch/missing/extra'. This discloses the write behavior and report format. It does not mention potential overwrites or error conditions, but the provided detail is solid.

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 three sentences, each providing essential information: what it does, how compute behaves, and how verify behaves. No filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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's complexity (9 params, nested manifest object, no output schema), the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not mention the manifest format beyond the filename, nor the meaning of 'strict', glob filters, size limits, or symlink behavior. For a sophisticated tool with no output schema, more detail is needed.

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 the description must compensate. It only explicitly explains 'action' and 'path' (the required params). The other seven parameters (strict, manifest, manifest_out, exclude_globs, include_globs, max_file_bytes, follow_symlinks) are left completely unexplained. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compute or verify SHA-256 checksums for tdmcp artifacts'. It specifies the resource (tdmcp artifacts) and the two primary actions (compute/verify). This distinguishes it from siblings that deal with other artifact operations.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for checksum computation or verification of tdmcp artifacts. It also notes 'No TD bridge required', which is a pertinent usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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