tool_hash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, required permissions, or what the return behavior is. Listing an 'Outputs' section is not enough; it lacks any explanation of the tool's behavior or assumptions.

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 short but under-specified. It is a bare list of parameters and outputs with no explanatory narrative. The structure is not front-loaded with a summary of purpose or behavior; it jumps straight to parameter listings. This is not conciseness but under-specification, similar to the TDQS 1.1 example.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no context. It does not clarify how the parameters relate to each other (e.g., is 'hash' both input and output?), what algorithms are supported, or what the output format looks like. For a crypto-related tool, the description is severely incomplete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description simply repeats the parameter names and their placeholder descriptions (e.g., 'data (string): Data') without adding any meaning. It does not explain what 'category' represents, what values 'algorithm' accepts, or how 'outputFormat' affects the result. The description adds zero value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is not warranted; a 2 reflects the redundancy.

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 opens with '[crypto] Hash' which restates the tool name without a clear verb phrase. It fails to specify what the tool actually does—for example, whether it computes a hash of the input data, verifies a hash, or something else. This is essentially a tautology and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like tool_hmac or tool_crypto.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, intended scenarios, or any exclusions. While it is not misleading, it offers zero usage context, so it scores at the 'no guidance' level.

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