hash_sha1

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

The description does not disclose that this is a deterministic, pure function with no side effects. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, which is misleading for a hash function), and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise (three words) and easy to parse. While it lacks depth, it is efficiently front-loaded and 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it could be improved by noting the output format (hex string) or any limitations.

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 single parameter 'text' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 action (Generate) and resource (SHA1 hash). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling hashing tools like hash_md5, hash_sha256, etc.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like SHA256 or MD5. There is no mention of SHA1's deprecated status or security context.

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