john_identify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Identify the hash type(s)' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, modifies any state, or what side effects may occur. It provides minimal 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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple but the description lacks critical context: no output schema exists, yet the return format is not described. It also doesn't explain how this tool fits into a workflow with siblings like john_crack. The minimal description is not fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke it confidently.

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% for the two parameters (hash and hash_file), so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only generically refers to 'given hash values'.

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 uses a specific verb 'Identify' and a clear resource 'hash type(s)' for 'given hash values'. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like john_crack (which cracks hashes) and john_formats (which lists formats).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like john_crack or john_formats. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical invocation contexts.

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