attestation_canonical_hash

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It explains the canonical JSON normalization (sorted keys, no whitespace) and that identical values yield identical hashes, but does not specify the output format (e.g., hex string) or any side effects.

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 sentences, front-loading the action and algorithm. Every sentence adds value: first defines operation, second provides context and property of the hash. No wasted words.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input processing, and usage context. However, it omits the return format (e.g., hex string), which an agent may need for downstream tasks.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'body' with a description. The tool description adds valuable context about canonical JSON processing (sorted keys, no whitespace) that enriches the schema's minimal description.

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 a SHA-256 canonical-JSON hash, specifying the algorithm and input type. It distinguishes itself from sibling hash-verification tools like ai_evidence_verify_hash by focusing on computation rather than verification.

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 use by naming specific services, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided for an agent selecting among hash-related tools.

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