hash

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral info. It mentions the four actions, default algorithm sha256, and default encoding hex, but does not state that hashing is one-way, that HMAC requires a key, or any side effects. For a pure utility, this is acceptable but not rich; it omits details like whether output is a string or object.

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 but packed sentence. It front-loads the primary purpose and lists supported algorithms and actions efficiently. No redundant filler; however, the long list of algorithms could be abbreviated by referencing the parameter enums.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and four distinct actions, but the description covers the actions generically without detailing output format, return structure, or edge cases (e.g., required key for HMAC, potential errors). Since there is no output schema, the description alone must clarify what the agent gets back; it doesn't.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter has a description with enums where applicable. The description adds little beyond the schema—it repeats the action list and algorithm options but does not provide new semantic meaning or usage hints for parameters like key or encoding format specifics.

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 it hashes text using specific algorithms (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-512) and supports HMAC, compare, and compute-all actions. It identifies the core resource (text) and the operation (hash/compare), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like password or jwt, which may also handle hashing.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., password, jwt, encode_decode). The description doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria. Usage is implied by the action parameter but not contextualized.

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