mcp-server-devutils

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose output format (e.g., returns a dict of algorithm:hash pairs), performance implications of hashing with 'all' algorithms, or error handling. 'At once' hints at batch processing but is vague.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Hash a string') and adds specificity ('with all supported algorithms at once') without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs a potentially complex operation. It doesn't explain what 'all supported algorithms' entails or what the return value looks like, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, with the parameter 'input' documented as 'The string to hash'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as encoding requirements or length limits. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.

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 action ('hash') and resource ('a string'), specifying it uses 'all supported algorithms at once'. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'hash' tool, which likely uses a single algorithm. However, it doesn't specify what those algorithms are, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'hash' sibling. It doesn't mention use cases (e.g., comparing multiple hashes, security testing) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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