cyberchef_analyse_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It is transparent that the result is probable rather than certain and identifies the heuristics used, but it does not disclose the output shape (single match vs list), confidence values, or behavior for malformed/unknown 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, then the method and examples. There is no filler or repetition of the schema, and every clause adds information.

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 single-parameter analysis tool, the definition is nearly complete: input, method, and probable outcome are present. The only meaningful gap is the absence of an output schema or explicit note about how matches/confidence are returned, which would matter to an agent deciding how much to trust the result.

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?

The input schema already gives 100% parameter coverage with a clear description plus length examples. The tool description adds context about character-set and length being classification signals, but it mostly reinforces rather than substantially extends the schema-defined semantics.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Identifies probable cryptographic hash algorithms'), a clear resource ('given digest'), and the distinguishing method (character set, bit length, structural signatures). It also names representative hash types, making its scope unmistakable and separating it from sibling encode/decode/hash tools.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you have a digest and need to determine what hash algorithm produced it. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings like cyberchef_magic or states when not to use it, leaving routing partially to inference.

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