Get agent hashes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds that the tool returns hashes and is for integrity verification, which is helpful but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as return format, performance, or prerequisites. Given the simplicity and annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get hashes of installed agents') and appends a useful note. No unnecessary words or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned (hashes), for what agents (installed), and why it might be used (integrity verification). There are no gaps in context given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain any input semantics, and the schema correctly reflects an empty parameter set.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get hashes of installed agents'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling agent tools like list_connected and list_all, which list agents rather than their hashes. The additional purpose 'useful for integrity verification' reinforces the intent.

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 a clear usage context by stating 'useful for integrity verification', implying when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple read-only getter, this level of guidance is sufficient.

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