sha_hash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'hash text with...' and never states the output format (e.g., hex digest, base64), whether the result is deterministic, lowercase, or how errors are handled. These are meaningful gaps for a tool whose primary return value is the hash itself.

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 filler. Each word informs the core function and the supported algorithm choices.

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 the description is enough to invoke the operation correctly, but because there is no output schema, the missing output format is a notable gap. Though hashing conventions may imply a hex digest, the description never states it, leaving a non-trivial assumption for callers.

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% since both parameters and their descriptions are present. The text in the description about the algorithm list merely duplicates what the enum in the schema already conveys, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('hash') and resource ('text') and enumerates the three supported algorithms (SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512). This is precise and distinguishes it unambiguously from the sibling tools like base64_encode and uuid_v4.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. Sibling tools like password_generate could also mind-shares with hashing, yet no direction is given on choosing between them.

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