hash_deck

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose determinism and the hashing implementation, and 'compute' implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not state whether the file content or parsed deck is hashed, path expectations, or potential failure modes.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the verb and the resource, with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the deterministic/algorithm detail is valuable without bloating the text.

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 one-parameter helper with an output schema, the core invocation requirements are met: an agent knows the action to perform, the required input, and that the result is deterministic. The lack of explicit safety or usage context is minor for this simple tool, though annotations could have strengthened it further.

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?

There is one required parameter, deck_path, with 0% schema description coverage. The description's 'deck' minimally ties the parameter to the tool's purpose, but it doesn't clarify path format, relative/absolute paths, or WSL/Windows path handling, which nearby sibling tools suggest could matter.

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 precise verb ('Compute'), names the resource ('a deck'), and specifies the algorithm ('opmhash') plus determinism. No sibling tool performs hashing, so it is clearly distinguishable from validate_deck, summarize_deck, and the other deck-related tools.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent must infer that hashing is for identity/comparison; there is no explicit context such as 'use validate_deck for validity checks instead.'

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