hash_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool produces a 'cryptographic hash' (one-way), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as determinism, performance characteristics, or limitations (e.g., unsuitability for password storage without salting). The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 and well-structured: a single purpose sentence, a brief usage paragraph, and bullet-like parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy 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 description covers the core functionality and usage scenarios. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., empty text or invalid algorithm), but for a straightforward hash function, this is acceptable. Minor gap in explaining the relationship to sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains each parameter (text required, algorithm options with recommendations, encoding options with defaults). This goes beyond the schema's raw type definitions, providing context like 'SHA-256 and SHA-512 are recommended for security-sensitive use.'

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 'Generate a cryptographic hash of input text' and distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_hashes by focusing on one-way hashing. The specific verb 'generate' combined with 'cryptographic hash' leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit use cases: 'password hashing, data integrity checks, digital signatures, or any scenario requiring a one-way hash.' While it does not explicitly exclude inappropriate uses, it strongly implies usage context. Alternatives are not named but are implicitly distinct (e.g., compare_hashes for comparing precomputed hashes).

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