crypto_hash_cracker

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the attack type (dictionary) and supported hash types, but fails to disclose nondestructive nature, permissions needed, rate limits, or response behavior. The external reference to describe_tool reduces transparency further.

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?

Three sentences. First sentence repeats menu ID and name. Third sentence is a pointer to describe_tool. Only the second sentence adds core value. Could be more concise by removing redundancy and integrating essential usage details.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no detail on parameter usage, output format, error handling, or limitations, making it insufficient for correct agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but doesn't. It mentions dictionary attacks but does not define meaning or constraints for 'hash', 'type', 'useCommonPasswords', or 'dictionary'. All four required parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 cracks password hashes using dictionary attacks and lists supported hash types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like crypto_hash or crypto_hash_identifier which only hash or identify. However, it relies on an external describe_tool command for full details, slightly diminishing clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crypto_password_strength or crypto_bcrypt_verify. The description lacks explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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