hash_identify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the pattern-matching approach, output (list of possible types with confidence scores and hashcat modes), and the critical parameter naming requirement (hash_value not hash). It lacks details on edge cases or errors, but for a read-only analysis tool, this is sufficient.

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-structured with clear sections (description, IMPORTANT note, Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value, and the repeated emphasis on the parameter name is purposeful for correctness. No unnecessary fluff.

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 a single parameter, an output schema (not shown but referenced), and no annotations, the description explains the return format (list of types with confidence and hashcat mode numbers) and the tool's behavior. It is complete for this simple tool's context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining that the parameter is the hash string, must be named 'hash_value', and provides an example. This is significantly more informative than the bare schema.

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 the tool identifies the algorithm used to produce a hash value, with a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('hash value'). It distinguishes from sibling 'hash_crack' by focusing on identification, not cracking.

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 clear context: it is used to identify hash types via pattern matching. It includes an explicit 'IMPORTANT' note on how to call the tool and what to expect. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or direct users to alternatives like hash_crack for cracking, so some implicit inference is required.

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