estimate_crack_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, stateless, idempotent, rate limits, authentication, error handling, and data privacy. This is comprehensive and exceeds typical disclosure.

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 well-structured with clear headings and a front-loaded first sentence. While lengthy, each section contributes to understanding. It is appropriately sized for the detail needed, though some redundancy exists between the 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections.

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 explains purpose, usage, and behavior well, but fails to describe the output format or structure, despite an output schema existing. It also omits any comparison to sibling tools in terms of when to use each. Overall, it is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 'Args' section merely restates parameter names (e.g., 'The password to analyze or process') without adding meaning beyond the schema. Default values are mentioned in the schema but not in the description. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Estimate how long to brute-force a password at given guess rate.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_strength, generate_password, and hash_password, which handle different aspects of password management.

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 explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, guiding the agent on appropriate contexts. However, the 'When to use' phrasing is somewhat generic ('structured analysis or classification') and does not directly contrast with sibling tools, which could improve clarity.

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