crypto_hash_identifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation by identifying hash types, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if identification fails. The behavior is generally clear but could be more explicit.

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 concise with two actionable sentences plus a metadata line. The core purpose is front-loaded. The 'Menu ID: hash_id' is of limited value to an AI agent and could be omitted, but overall the description is well-structured.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and references further guidance. However, it lacks details on input format, output structure, or edge cases (e.g., unrecognized hash). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage), so the description has nothing to add. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not clutter with parameter details.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Hash Identification' and 'Analyze and identify hash algorithms from hash strings.' It lists specific detectable hash types (MD5, SHA-1, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like crypto_hash (which generates hashes) and crypto_hash_cracker (which cracks hashes).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions using describe_tool for more info, but does not compare with sibling tools like crypto_hash_cracker or crypto_checksum. There is no 'when not to use' or explicit context for selection.

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