fuzz_dirs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions thread control, tool defaults, and the behavior when wordlists are missing. However, it doesn't discuss side effects like load/congestion, authentication requirements, or result handling, though an output schema exists. The provided edge-case help is useful, but not comprehensive.

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 structured as Purpose, Constraints, and Example. It is concise, every sentence serves a purpose, and the example is illustrative without being verbose. Front-loaded purpose makes it immediately scannable.

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 core use case, required input, tool selection, concurrency control, and a wordlist-missing edge case. However, with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the lack of explanation for extensions, extra_args, and include_raw leaves the description incomplete for advanced usage. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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_url, tool, threads, and wordlist, but omits extensions, extra_args, and include_raw. Since it covers 4 of 7 parameters with meaningful context, it provides some value but leaves significant gaps for the remaining ones.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Discover web paths with gobuster or ffuf', immediately stating the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the specific fuzzing tools and mentioning thread control. The example further reinforces the intended use.

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 clear operational context: requires target_url, explains the default tool (gobuster) and how to switch to ffuf, and notes that threads controls concurrency. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose and constraints are sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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