pentest_web_jwt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key behavioral fact that analysis is offline/local and enumerates the checks performed, which tells the agent no network traffic is generated. However, it does not say whether HMAC cracking is attempted automatically, how expensive it is, or what happens if no secret is found.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the operation first and the enumerated checks after the colon; no filler. It is a sentence fragment, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must carry everything; it conveys the analysis categories well enough to choose the tool but leaves the wordlist parameter and the nature/shape of results unexplained. For a two-parameter analysis tool with a cracking capability, this is adequate but incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and largely does not. The 'token' input is inferable from 'a captured JWT' but never stated, and the 'wordlist' parameter — which gates the cracking feature — is only obliquely hinted at by 'weak HMAC secret cracking' with no mention that the input is a custom wordlist.

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 uses a specific verb (analyse) on a specific resource (a captured JWT) and names three concrete analysis outputs: algorithm risks, missing claims, HMAC secret cracking. It distinguishes itself from CTF decode/crack siblings via 'offline' and 'JWT', though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Analyse a captured JWT offline' implies the precondition (you already hold a token, no live target needed), which is genuinely useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to adjacent siblings such as pentest_ctf_hash_crack or pentest_ctf_decode for related work.

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