crack_john

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the full workflow: writes hashes to a temp file, cracks with john, shows results with john --show, and removes the temp file. This gives valuable insight into the tool's behavior and side effects (temporary file cleanup). It does not mention potential long runtimes or error handling, but the essential behavior is well covered.

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 structured into Purpose, Constraints, and Example sections. Every sentence provides essential information without padding. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the example grounds the abstract concepts.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, external process) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main workflow and constraints. It explains the temporary file lifecycle and when to use format/extra_args. It does not detail return values (mitigated by output schema) or error scenarios, but for a cracking tool, this is sufficient.

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 adds meaning for 'format' (hash type selector) and 'extra_args' (additional John arguments), and the example demonstrates use of 'hashes' and 'wordlist'. However, 'wordlist' and 'extra_args' are not fully explained (e.g., default values, path requirements), leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Run John the Ripper against supplied hashes using a wordlist.' This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like bruteforce_hydra or hashcat-dependent tools. The example further reinforces the intended use.

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 usage context, such as writing hashes to a temporary file and cleaning up, and explicitly instructs to use 'format and extra_args when hash type needs explicit selection.' However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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