hash

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses default algorithms but fails to specify output format (e.g., hex, object) or how the 'algorithms' parameter interacts with defaults. It also inaccurately classifies CRC32 as cryptographic, which may mislead.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and lists defaults without filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits return value format and algorithm parameter semantics. This leaves important gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description partially compensates by listing default algorithm names, giving meaning to the 'algorithms' parameter. However, it does not clarify input encoding or behavior for invalid algorithm names.

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 computes cryptographic hashes of text input, using a specific verb and resource. It lists default algorithms and is distinct from sibling tools, none of which perform hashing.

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 by stating its function but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to alternatives. No alternative tools are mentioned, so context is limited.

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