api_jwt_crack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Crack JWT' with no mention of supplied parameters (token, wordlist), side effects, required permissions, or whether it performs offline brute-force or active attacks. This is a complete gap for a security tool.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Two words do not earn their place; they fail to communicate anything beyond the name.

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 tool with two parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is completely inadequate. It does not cover input, output, behavior, or edge cases, leaving the agent with no way to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0% for both 'token' and 'wordlist' parameters. The description adds no meaning about what these parameters are or how they are used. It does not even hint that a token is required or that a wordlist may be supplied.

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 'Crack JWT.' repeats the tool name with a verb, but does not explain what 'crack' entails (e.g., brute-force, dictionary attack, exploit). It barely distinguishes from sibling api_jwt_analyze, as 'crack' is too vague to convey specific 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like api_jwt_analyze or other cracking tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, expected token format, or typical use cases.

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