Hash a Luau closure's bytecode

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: cost=medium, required preconditions, and specifically that C closures return a clean executor error rather than a hash. It does not describe the return format in depth, but the added failure behavior is genuinely useful.

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 purpose is front-loaded well, but the trailing metadata block (Phase/cost/idempotency/Safety) is largely template and partially duplicates the annotations ('idempotency=read-only' and 'Safety: read-only' restate readOnlyHint/idempotentHint). The 'On failure: inspect tool-schema...' pointer is useful but generic, so several tokens do not fully earn their place.

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 read-only hashing primitive with no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, failure behavior, and safety adequately; annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete, only lacking a hint of the returned value's shape/format, which is a minor gap for a hash tool.

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 both functionPath and threadContext are already documented in the schema. The description restates the signature ({ functionPath, threadContext? }) without adding format, syntax, or defaulting detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: resolve a function and return getfunctionhash(fn) for stable comparison and change detection. The title reinforces it as bytecode hashing of a Luau closure. It is clear what it does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with near-siblings like get-script-hash, disassemble-function, or get-closure-protos.

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?

Gives a concrete use context ('stable comparison and change detection') and a meaningful boundary condition: Volt only hashes Luau closures, C closures return a clean executor error. It also lists prerequisites (active-client, resolved-target). No explicit sibling alternatives are named, so it stops short of a 5.

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