Hash text

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful traits: determinism and non-reversibility ('not something that can be worked out by reading'). However, it does not mention output encoding, the effect of the selected algorithm, or whether any side effects exist, leaving a moderately complete behavioral picture.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and free of filler. The second sentence is slightly vague, but it contributes a behavioral distinction rather than padding, so the length and structure are strong.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with fully described schema fields and an algorithm enum/default, the description covers the essential invocation context. It does not specify the return format, but that is a minor gap given the task's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both text and algorithm are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond 'some text', so the baseline score 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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Compute a cryptographic hash of some text'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling text-analysis tools (count_text, score_readability, diff_texts, test_regex), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended usage is implied by the self-describing operation, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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