jevguard_cache_fingerprint

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 discloses that the tool performs masking of volatile keys (timestamp, trace_id, request_id) and that it is for deterministic caching, which is a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., the fingerprint string), side effects, or whether the tool is pure (read-only). It does not contradict annotations since none exist, but it could add more.

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, dense sentence that packs in the core purpose, method, and key behaviors (masking, deterministic caching). It is efficient and front-loads the essential information. The main minor issue is that it could be split into two sentences for readability, but it's not verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the main flow but omits details on how the fingerprint is returned, what the format is, and how to interpret the output for caching. It also doesn't mention edge cases like when auto_inject_escapes might be disabled. For a caching-related tool, more specifics on output and usage would be helpful, but it's adequate for basic invocation.

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 schema documentation covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add much. However, the description adds context on how parameters are used: it mentions volatile key masking that relates to ignore_keys and the standard defaults, and it clarifies the role of state and questions. This is slightly above baseline but not substantial.

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 tool computes a SHA-256 fingerprint from state and questions, with a specific purpose (0-token deterministic caching) and mentions volatile key masking. It distinguishes itself from siblings like jevguard_calibrate and jevguard_evaluate, which are about other operations. However, it could be more explicit about what makes it different from jevguard_prune_state, but overall purpose is clear.

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 implies when to use the tool (for caching by computing a fingerprint) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., if you need to evaluate or calibrate, use those tools). It does not mention any prerequisites or situations where this tool is inappropriate. Thus, usage guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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