identify_hash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that identification is based on 'shape' and that the output includes implications for cracking or reuse. However, it does not disclose how unknown/unrecognized hashes are handled, what exact output format is returned, or that the analysis is heuristic, which leaves meaningful gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the supported hash categories and the practical value of the output. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity identification tool, the description covers what it accepts, what it does, and what the result means operationally. It does not describe the precise response structure, but since there is no output schema and the tool's function is simple, the gaps are minor.

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 the single 'hash' parameter. It partially does so by indicating that the input is a hash string and listing recognized hash families. It does not specify accepted string encodings, prefixes, or edge-case formats, but the single self-descriptive parameter limits the damage.

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 a specific verb ('Identify'), a concrete resource ('a hash'), and enumerates the recognized hash families (bcrypt, Argon2, yescrypt, Unix crypt, LM:NT, MD5/NTLM, SHA variants). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like decode_jwt or extract_iocs by making the target resource and action explicit, though it does not name a sibling alternative directly.

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 intended usage is implied: when an agent encounters a hash and needs to identify its type or understand cracking/reuse implications, this tool is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools that might also handle hash-like data.

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