websex_sherlock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that argv tokens are executed directly without shell parsing and that relative paths apply within an engagement namespace, but it omits whether the tool is read-only, what network activity it performs, and what its output contains.

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 three tight sentences and front-loads the core action ('Run sherlock'). It avoids filler, though the final sentence about relative paths is somewhat redundant with the earlier namespace sentence.

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 four-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description should explain the tool's actual enumeration purpose and parameter usage; it leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 but largely does not. It clarifies that 'arguments' are raw argv tokens and hints at relative paths for engagement artifacts, yet never explains engagement_id, stdin, working_directory, or the expected argument format.

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 names a specific executable ('sherlock') and states its source toolkit, giving a clear verb-plus-resource purpose. However, it does not explain what sherlock actually enumerates (e.g., usernames across social networks), so an agent unfamiliar with the tool learns little beyond the binary name.

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 no guidance on when to use sherlock versus the many sibling enumeration tools, nor any conditions or exclusions for its use. It only states operational context about the engagement namespace and relative paths, not selection criteria.

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