hash

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that output is hex + base64, which is useful, but omits details like determinism, performance, or error behavior. For a simple hash utility this is acceptable, but not comprehensive.

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 in a single sentence, but the unexplained '54ch10' is cryptic and may hinder comprehension. It front-loads the action but the quality is reduced by this opaque term.

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 exists, but the description explains the return format ('hex + base64'). It lacks mention of input size limits (though schema includes maxLength) and error handling. For a simple utility, it is barely adequate but could be clearer.

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 covers 100% of parameters (q, algo) with descriptions and enum for algo. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, so it rides on the schema's full coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (hash), resource (UTF-8 text), and algorithm list (sha256, sha1, md5), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like encode. However, the cryptic '54ch10' reference adds ambiguity and could confuse an agent.

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 description provides a clear when-not-to-use exclusion ('not crypto advice'), implying it is for non-security contexts. While it doesn't name an explicit alternative tool, this guidance helps agents route correctly.

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