hash_crack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that it uses dictionary attacks via John or Hashcat, explains the 'auto' tool preference order, and warns about authorized use only. It does not mention potential resource usage, prerequisites, or side effects, leaving some gaps in transparency. Overall, it provides moderate behavioral context.

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 well-organized and front-loaded, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an important naming note. The Args section is concise and informative, and the notes add valuable caveats. Slight repetition of the hash_value naming warning occurs, but it reinforces a critical detail without being bloated.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the detailed parameter explanations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, usage notes, and ethical considerations. It lacks explicit alternative tool guidance and some operational details, but for a hash cracking tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use 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?

The input schema itself provides no descriptions (0% schema coverage), but the tool description thoroughly explains every parameter with defaults and examples. For instance, hash_value is accompanied by a critical naming note and an example, and tool_preference is explained with its enum values. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions, making parameter semantics excellent.

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 clearly states 'Attempt to crack a hash using a dictionary attack,' specifying the verb, resource, and method. It mentions the underlying tools (John the Ripper, Hashcat), which clarifies its function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like hydra_attack or hash_identify, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides some usage context, such as 'Only use for authorized password recovery or testing purposes' and notes that dictionary attacks may not work against strong passwords. It also advises that hashcat is preferred for GPU-accelerated cracking. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hash_identify or hydra_attack, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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