cyberchef_analyse_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses supported families (Argon2, scrypt, PBKDF2, bcrypt prefixes), that output is ranked confidence for hex digests, that OWASP parameter audits are performed, and explicitly that it does not crack hashes. It omits side-effect/performance notes, but for a pure classification tool this is a strong disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then supported coverage, then the crucial non-goal. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 or annotations exist, so the description must carry everything; it covers inputs, supported algorithms, confidence ranking, and non-cracking behavior. The only gap is the shape of the returned result (single answer vs ranked list object), which is implied but not stated.

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% and the single parameter already documents example formats (PHC string, bcrypt, 32/64-char hex). The description reinforces which formats are accepted but adds no new syntax or constraint beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (identifies/classifies) and resource (cryptographic hash algorithms) with scope details: character set, bit length, structural signatures. No sibling tool covers hash identification, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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 closing note 'Classifies format; does not crack hashes' is an explicit when-not, which steers the agent away from expecting recovery. It lacks named alternatives or a stated precondition (e.g., 'use when you have an unknown digest'), but the context is clear.

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