kali_password_john_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 'password cracker' which implies a resource-intensive, potentially long-running operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like performance expectations, output format, error handling, or system impact. The mention of 'attack modes' is vague without elaboration.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral context.

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 password cracking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (cracked passwords? success/failure?), doesn't warn about resource usage or ethical considerations, and provides minimal behavioral context despite the tool's complexity.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when 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: 'John the Ripper password cracker' specifies the verb (crack) and resource (passwords), and 'supporting many hash formats and attack modes' adds useful context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'kali_password_hashcat_crack' by naming a specific tool (John the Ripper), but doesn't explicitly contrast their differences.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kali_password_hashcat_crack' or 'kali_password_hydra_brute'. The description mentions 'many hash formats and attack modes' which implies versatility, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for tool selection.

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