websex_gobuster

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add two useful facts: argv tokens are passed directly with no shell parsing (so quoting/escaping behavior is predictable), and execution is scoped to the selected engagement namespace. It does not disclose whether gobuster makes outbound network traffic, whether it writes artifacts, or what the resource/auth profile looks like, which is a meaningful gap for a scanner.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the execution semantics. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but there is no padding or filler.

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 narrated. For a four-parameter wrapper with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, though, the definition stops short: parameter meaning and selection guidance versus sibling bruteforcers are both missing.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It maps only obliquely onto two of them ('supplied argv tokens' implies the arguments array; 'use relative paths for engagement artifacts' implies working_directory), leaving stdin and engagement_id completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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+resource ('Run gobuster from the WebSex web toolkit'), which is unambiguous about what will execute. However it offers no differentiation from the many overlapping directory/content bruteforce siblings (websex_ffuf, websex_feroxbuster, websex_dirb, websex_dirsearch, websex_wfuzz), so an agent cannot tell why it should pick gobuster over them from the description 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the brute-force siblings. The only procedural note is the namespace/relative-path hint, which is operational context rather than tool-selection guidance.

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