kali_password_hashcat_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. It mentions GPU acceleration and hash type support, but lacks critical details such as required permissions, whether it's destructive (likely yes for password cracking), performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentences that efficiently convey key features. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the tool's action (cracking).

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 of a password cracking tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses behavioral context (e.g., destructive nature, resource usage), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and output expectations, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like attack_type and wordlist/mask). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose as 'Advanced password recovery tool using GPU acceleration' with the specific action 'crack' implied in the name. It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., kali_password_hydra_brute focuses on brute-force attacks, kali_password_john_crack is another cracker) by mentioning GPU acceleration and 300+ hash type support, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all password-related siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kali_password_hydra_brute or kali_password_john_crack is provided. The description mentions general features (GPU acceleration, hash types) but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for choosing this tool over others.

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