mcp-server-devutils

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 specifies the operation (hashing) and supported algorithms, but doesn't mention output format (e.g., hex string), performance characteristics, or security implications. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks richer 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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second lists supported algorithms. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and algorithm support, but could improve by mentioning the output format or typical use cases. For a simple hashing tool, it's mostly adequate.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds value by listing the specific algorithm options, which reinforces the enum in the schema, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured data.

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 verb ('hash') and resource ('a string'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hash_all' by focusing on single-string hashing rather than batch processing, and from encoding/decoding tools by its cryptographic purpose.

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 clear context by listing supported algorithms, which helps select this tool for string hashing needs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'hash_all' for batch processing or other sibling tools for different operations, leaving some guidance gaps.

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