john_hash_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using *2john utilities but does not explain output format, potential side effects, whether files are modified, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool that runs external processes.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and provides all essential info in under 15 words, with no fluff. Every word 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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description should cover return values and behavior. It lacks any mention of what the extracted hash output looks like, how to feed it to john_crack, or what happens on unsupported files. This makes it incomplete for a tool that is part of a cracking workflow.

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 schema already documents both parameters and enumerates all valid types, providing 100% coverage. The description adds the detail that John's *2john utilities are used, but this does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (Extract hashes), the resource (from various file types), and the mechanism (*2john utilities), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like john_crack and john_identify. It is specific and actionable.

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 that this tool works on files rather than existing hashes, implying it is a preparatory step before cracking. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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