Text-Toolkit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Generate SHA-1 hash' implies a deterministic computation but reveals nothing about performance, error handling, output format, or security implications (e.g., SHA-1 is cryptographically broken). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple hashing tool. Every word earns its place by specifying both the action and algorithm.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., hex string), doesn't document the single parameter, and provides no behavioral context. For a cryptographic tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it correctly.

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 doesn't mention the 'text' parameter at all, leaving the input completely undocumented. However, since there's only one parameter and SHA-1 is a standard algorithm, the agent might infer the parameter's purpose. This meets the minimum baseline but doesn't add meaningful semantics 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 'Generate SHA-1 hash' clearly states the verb ('Generate') and resource ('SHA-1 hash'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_md5, generate_sha256, and generate_sha512 by specifying the exact hash algorithm. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what resource is being hashed (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 SHA-1 is appropriate compared to other hash functions (e.g., MD5 for speed, SHA-256 for security), nor does it reference sibling tools like generate_md5 or generate_sha256. 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.