bruteforce_hydra

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions that the target is validated and that the output summary keeps credential findings, which adds some insight. However, it does not disclose network activity, rate limiting, error handling, or potential side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Purpose, Constraints, and Example. It is concise, uses no filler, and the example is practical and easy to understand. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description provides the essential purpose, required parameters, and an example, making it usable for a straightforward call. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, it misses optional parameters and any caveats about prerequisites or operational impact, making it adequate but not fully complete for a brute-force tool with six parameters.

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. It explains target, service, usernames, and passwords, including the 'file:' prefix for wordlists, and gives an example. However, it omits the 'port' and 'options' parameters entirely, leaving two of six parameters undocumented.

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 opens with 'Run Hydra for online credential testing against a service,' clearly stating the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from offline cracking tools like crack_john by emphasizing 'online,' and the example reinforces the purpose.

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 lists required inputs and provides an example, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., crack_john) or state when not to use it. The phrase 'online credential testing' implies a distinct use case but lacks explicit guidance.

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