aya_projeto_calcular_hash

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authorized root constraint, which is a useful scoping detail, but it does not describe error behavior (e.g., file not found, unauthorized path), whether the operation is read-only, or what the return value looks like. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It states the action and the scope in a clear, concise manner. Every word contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't specify the return format (e.g., hash string, hex, base64) or error handling. While the task is straightforward, an agent would be uncertain about the output structure and failure modes. The scope constraint is helpful but not sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'caminho' by specifying it must be a file within the authorized root, but it doesn't clarify the path format (absolute/relative), whether directories are allowed, or any other constraints. Partial compensation but leaves gaps.

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 verb and resource: 'Calcula SHA-256 de arquivo' (calculates SHA-256 of a file), and adds a scope constraint 'dentro da raiz autorizada' (within authorized root). This clearly conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from hash validation tools, though it doesn't name any siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, such as when to use a hashtag validation tool instead. The description is purely declarative without context for tool selection.

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