crack_hash_offline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the audit is offline and uses hashcat/john, implying potential intensive computation. However, it does not mention resource requirements, time expectations, or whether the hash file must be preprocessed. No annotation contradictions exist.

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 a single sentence under 15 words, which is concise and front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place: 'offline password-strength audit,' 'hashcat/john,' 'hash file placed in data/hashes/'. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (offline cracking with parameters like hash mode and wordlist) but having an output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and file location but lacks guidance on hash mode selection, wordlist format, and expected output. With 0% schema coverage and no annotations, more detail is warranted.

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 0% (no parameters explained in description). While the description mentions 'hash file placed in data/hashes/', it does not explain hash_file, hash_mode, wordlist, or tool beyond the tool's default. The schema itself lacks descriptions for each property, so the description does not add enough semantic meaning for the 4 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 clearly states it runs an offline password-strength audit using hashcat/john against a hash file. The verb 'Run' and resource 'password-strength audit' are specific, and the mention of specific tools (hashcat/john) adds clarity. It distinguishes from siblings like hydra_bruteforce (online) but could explicitly differentiate from other audit tools.

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 implies usage for offline password auditing, which contrasts with online tools like hydra_bruteforce. However, it does not state when to use this vs. other audit tools (e.g., audit_suid_world_writable) or provide any prerequisites or exclusions. The context suggests it's for offline cracking, but explicit guidance is missing.

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