storage_md5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only' and mentions the underlying protocol (storage_md5sum_request), providing context beyond the annotation about how the tool works over BLE.

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 sentence with a parenthetical, no verbose or redundant content. Every word adds value.

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 simple hash computation tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers essential aspects. It mentions purpose (integrity check) and safety (read-only). Missing are potential error conditions like file not found or size limits.

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?

The only parameter 'path' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on path format, constraints, or examples, leaving the agent to infer from name and context.

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?

Description clearly states 'MD5 hash of a file on the Flipper over BLE', specifying the verb (compute hash) and resource (file). Distinguishes from sibling tools like storage_read or storage_stat, which do different operations.

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 phrase 'integrity check' implies a use case, but no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites.

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