crypto_hash

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

With no annotations provided, the description relies entirely on its own text. It discloses irreversibility, algorithm options, and MD5's 16/32-bit output variation. However, it does not mention default settings (e.g., algorithm defaults to md5), the requirement for a key when using hmac-* algorithms, input encoding, or error behavior for invalid inputs.

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 concise, two sentences, with key information front-loaded: the purpose, irreversibility, algorithm list, and MD5 bit option. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant filler.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the tool has 5 parameters. The description covers the primary use case and algorithm variants, but lacks important operational details such as the default algorithm (md5), the fact that HMAC algorithms require a key, output casing defaults, and input encoding assumptions. While the description is usable, it leaves gaps for an agent to discover at runtime.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description complements the schema by listing algorithm choices and clarifying the bits parameter semantics ('MD5 支持 16/32 位输出'), but it does not clarify the text parameter (which has no schema description) or add meaningful detail about the key parameter beyond what the schema already states. It partially compensates but does not fully bridge the gap for undocumented parameters.

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 a specific verb (计算/calculation) and resource (哈希/hash), and explicitly notes irreversibility ('不可逆'), which distinguishes it from reversible crypto tools like crypto_symmetric. It also enumerates all supported algorithm variants, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 irreversibility note provides useful context, implying this is for one-way hashing rather than encryption, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like crypto_symmetric or the encode_* tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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