hash_identify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses offline operation and 'no target contact', and the phrase 'likely algorithm(s)' conveys probabilistic/multiple-candidate behavior. However, it does not address error handling or behavior with invalid hashes.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (USECASE, INSTRUCTIONS, PREREQUISITES) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Minor redundancy exists (INPUT_DESCRIPTION repeats Args, OUTPUT_DESCRIPTION repeats Returns), but overall it is scannable and not overlong.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, example, prerequisites, related tool, and parameter semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates with 'Args: hash_value: The hash string to identify' and a matching INPUT_DESCRIPTION. This gives the agent complete understanding of the parameter.

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 opens with 'Identify the likely algorithm(s) of a hash string (hashid)', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like hash_crack by focusing on identification rather than cracking.

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 USECASE field states 'Determine which hashing algorithm produced a given hash before cracking' and PREREQUISITES notes 'None — offline, no target contact', providing explicit context for when to use. RELATED_TOOLS lists hash_crack as an alternative, making the workflow clear.

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