websex_medusa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does add genuinely useful execution semantics: medusa runs directly with argv tokens and no shell parsing, and artifacts are resolved via relative paths in the engagement namespace. It stops short of stating permissions, expected runtime, or side effects of a credential attack.

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 execution details, with no filler. Slightly compact given the amount an agent needs to know about a 4-param process-execution tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 described. However, for a tool with 4 undocumented parameters and zero annotation coverage, the description should specify argument/engagement_id expectations and any safety caveats; it covers execution mechanics but not the parameter contract.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'arguments' (argv tokens) and 'working_directory' (relative paths) but says nothing about 'stdin' or 'engagement_id', leaving half the parameters undocumented in either schema or prose.

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 ('Run medusa') and identifies it as part of the WebSex credentials toolkit, clarifying it is a credential-attack tool. It does not, however, differentiate it from siblings like websex_hydra, websex_patator, or websex_john that serve overlapping purposes.

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 notes it runs from the selected engagement namespace and to use relative paths, which is invocation context rather than tool selection guidance. It never says when to prefer medusa over hydra/patator or what preconditions (target host, credential lists) are needed.

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