Hash de un APK local

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a hash calculation. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by emphasizing that the file is already on disk and no re-extraction occurs, which clarifies operational scope.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource. No redundant information; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key constraint.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and behavioral nuance (no re-extraction). Could mention output format (hash string) but not essential given context.

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 100% with a single parameter filePath fully described. The description reinforces that the file is local and an APK but does not add significant new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('calcula') and resource ('SHA-256 de un archivo APK'), clearly stating it computes a hash from a local file without re-extraction. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apk_pull (which extracts from device) and vt_file_upload (which uploads for scanning).

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 when needing SHA-256 of an already-disk APK and explicitly states no extraction is needed, but does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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