keccak256_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the core function and does not disclose output format (e.g., hex with or without 0x prefix) or how string inputs are encoded. This leaves important behavioral details ambiguous, though the purpose and schema provide some context.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a purpose clause. Every word earns its place, and it is easily scannable.

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 is simple and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema and no mention of return format or encoding nuances. The description remains adequate for basic selection but lacks enough detail for flawless invocation in edge cases.

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 100%, and the schema already explains the 'type' and 'value' parameters with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond calling 'value' a value, so it meets the baseline without enriching beyond schema.

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 Keccak-256 hash with a specific verb and resource, and provides concrete Ethereum use cases (function selectors, event topics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hash_message or get_function_selector, which are specialized for different hashing needs.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool ('Used for hashing in Ethereum') and common applications, which helps an agent select it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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