compute_workbook_source_hash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read-only operation ('compute hash') with no side effects or dependencies mentioned. While it does not explicitly say it does not modify the workbook, the nature of hashing implies non-destructive behavior, which is sufficient.

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, concise sentence that directly conveys the action and purpose. No redundant words or extraneous details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does and why it is used, without needing to explain return values or side effects. It is complete for the agent's decision-making.

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, 'excel_path', is self-explanatory given the tool name and description (path to a COBie workbook). The schema lacks a formal description, but the tool description provides enough context to understand the parameter's role. No additional ambiguities exist.

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 the action ('Compute'), the object ('canonical source hash'), and the context ('for a COBie workbook' and 'for graph sync checks'). It distinguishes this utility from other COBie and graph tools by specifying its hashing purpose.

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 'for graph sync checks' gives a clear usage context, implying this tool is used when verifying consistency between COBie data and graph state. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to select it.

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