websex_patator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful execution semantics: argv tokens are passed directly and shell parsing is never used (so no pipes/redirects/globbing), plus namespace and path scoping. It omits the risk profile entirely — nothing about this being an aggressive credential brute-forcer, lockout/rate-limit implications, or required authorization.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the execution caveat follows immediately. No filler, though the sentence on relative paths is slightly operational housekeeping rather than tool identity.

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 no explanation. For a no-annotation execution wrapper with 0% parameter coverage, the description covers execution mechanics adequately but leaves the tool's offensive nature, target protocols, and argument conventions unstated.

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 maps loosely to arguments ("argv tokens"), working_directory ("relative paths"), and engagement_id (namespace scoping), but says nothing about the stdin parameter and gives no format detail for the required argument vector.

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 patator") and places it in the credentials toolkit, so the agent knows it is executing the patator binary. However, it never distinguishes it from the many sibling credential tools (hydra, medusa, john, hashcat) that an agent must choose between.

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 call-site mechanics ("use relative paths for engagement artifacts", runs from the engagement namespace) but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing between patator and its credential-tool siblings. Usage context is implied at best.

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