hash_sha256

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

The function is straightforward: it computes a hash. The description discloses the input-output relationship via example, and there are no side effects, auth needs, or rate limits to disclose. Annotations are consistent.

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: a single sentence plus an example. Every element is information-dense with no redundancy.

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, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit statement that the output is a 64-character hex string, but the truncated example implies this. Given no output schema, this slight omission is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds an example output, which helps agents understand the result format. The schema's parameter description is clear, but the description provides additional context.

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 'Generate SHA256 hash of input text' uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling hash tools (e.g., hash_md5, hash_sha1) by algorithm name. The example further clarifies the action.

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 does not explicitly state when to use SHA256 over other hash algorithms or provide exclusions. It merely implies usage for hashing, leaving selection to the agent based on the name.

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