hash_identifier

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 output format (list ranked by likelihood with hashcat mode and john format) and implies a read-only analysis. It does not mention limitations or error behavior, but it adequately conveys what the tool does and returns for an identification task.

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: states purpose, gives usage context, then output format. It is concise and front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple identification tool with no output schema, the description explains the output and usage. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., ambiguous hashes) but covers what an agent needs to invoke correctly. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's output explanation.

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%, with both parameters (hash_str and hashfile) already described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-specific guidance (e.g., when to use one over the other). It only indirectly references the hash string. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters.

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 states a specific verb (identifies), a resource (hash string), and the output (list of possible algorithms). It explicitly names common algorithms (MD5, SHA1, etc.) and clearly distinguishes itself from cracking tools like john and hashcat by stating it should be used BEFORE cracking.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use BEFORE attempting to crack a hash' and explains why (to select correct mode in hashcat or format in john). This clearly routes the agent to use this tool before cracking tools, distinguishing it from the sibling cracking tools.

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