hash_files

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

The description claims the tool 'reads local disk' and computes hashes, implying a read-only operation. However, annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting the tool may have destructive side effects. This contradiction undermines transparency.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The purpose is stated first, followed by use cases and a key constraint. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers core purpose, use cases, and a constraint. However, it does not mention output format, potential performance impact, or reconcile the annotation contradiction, leaving gaps for a tool with destructiveHint=true.

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 already fully describes the 'path' parameter with a description that includes 'recursively'. The tool description adds context about the directory and algorithm but does not add significant new semantic 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 clearly states the verb 'Compute SHA-256 hashes' and the resource 'all files in a directory'. It provides specific use cases (integrity baselines, tampering detection) and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on network or system scanning.

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 explains when to use the tool (creating integrity baselines, detecting tampering) and notes that it only works locally ('Reads local disk — not possible remotely'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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