IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is not a read-only operation (though hashing is typically non-destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't specify if the hash is deterministic, irreversible, or has any side effects. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, and for a simple hashing tool, the description's brevity is somewhat acceptable given the straightforward nature of the 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 at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. For a simple tool like this, such brevity is efficient and appropriate, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, simple hashing function) and the presence of annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or performance characteristics. However, for a basic utility tool among many siblings, this is adequate though not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'text' parameter clearly documented as 'Text to hash with SHA512'. The description doesn't add any extra semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as input length limits or encoding considerations. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 SHA512 hash' clearly states the action (generate) and the specific resource (SHA512 hash). It distinguishes this tool from other hash functions like hash_md5, hash_sha1, and hash_sha256 in the sibling list by specifying the exact algorithm. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what it generates the hash from (text input), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when SHA512 is preferred over other hash functions (e.g., for security vs. speed), nor does it reference sibling tools like hash_sha256 or hash_md5. Without any context about use cases or comparisons, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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