kali_password_crack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this tool executes commands, requires special permissions, has destructive effects, produces output, or has any operational characteristics. For a tool with 'crack' in its name that likely performs security testing operations, this lack of behavioral information is particularly problematic.

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?

While technically concise (two words), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load essential information and fails to provide even basic operational context. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal description doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient value.

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 complexity implied by the tool name ('password_crack'), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does operationally, what it returns, when to use it, or any behavioral characteristics. For a potentially complex security tool with 3 parameters, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Password cracking tools' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'kali_password_crack' without specifying what action it performs. While it indicates the domain (password cracking), it doesn't specify whether it runs, configures, lists, or manages these tools, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'kali_crypto_tools' or 'kali_enumeration_tools' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are 22 sibling tools on this server, many in related security domains (crypto_tools, enumeration_tools, web_exploitation), but the description offers no context about when password cracking is appropriate or what distinguishes this from other Kali tools.

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