websex_dirsearch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the container executes dirsearch directly with argv tokens and never invokes a shell. But it says nothing about network impact on the target, rate limits, timeouts, or whether it writes files into the engagement namespace.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core identity ('Run dirsearch') is front-loaded. It stays appropriately short for a thin CLI wrapper.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the execution model and namespace convention are covered. Still, for an arbitrary-argv wrapper the description omits the typical invocation pattern and any safety framing, leaving moderate gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It clarifies that 'arguments' are argv tokens (no shell quoting needed), ties the namespace to 'engagement_id', and explains relative-path handling for 'working_directory', but the 'stdin' parameter is entirely unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run dirsearch') and identifies it as part of the WebSex toolkit. However, it does not differentiate dirsearch from the many sibling content-discovery tools (gobuster, ffuf, feroxbuster, dirb, wfuzz), leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the binary name alone.

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 gives operational conventions ('runs from the selected engagement namespace', 'use relative paths') but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the numerous sibling directory-brute-forcing tools. An agent gets no help choosing dirsearch over gobuster or ffuf.

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