crunch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output destination ('Output: wordlist printed to stdout or written to a file') and mentions the use of character sets and patterns. It does not detail potential side effects or performance implications, but as a generator it is inherently non-destructive and the main behavior is adequately described.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, and finally output behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

For a tool with 5 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage conditions, alternative tool, and output destination. It lacks details on potential constraints (e.g., maximum length limits, charset restrictions) but these are minor and the schema covers the parameters. Overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds semantic value by explaining how the parameters combine ('based on character sets, length ranges, and patterns') and gives a concrete example for the 'opts' parameter ('-t @@@%%%' for pattern), which clarifies the intended usage beyond the raw 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 tool's purpose: 'Wordlist generator — creates custom password lists based on character sets, length ranges, and patterns.' It uses a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('custom password lists') and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling cewl, making it unambiguous which tool to pick.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use to generate targeted wordlists when you know password policy (min/max length, required characters).' It also gives an alternative and when-not-to-use: 'For generating wordlists from website content (password profiling), use cewl instead.' This fully covers usage selection.

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