gobuster_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one valuable operational fact: the scan runs on a remote Kali machine. However, it omits run-time traits like expected duration, noisiness/intrusiveness, timeouts, or whether results are streamed or returned at completion.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the discovery outcome second. No filler, though it is brief enough that it could have afforded one more sentence of routing guidance.

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?

For a 6-parameter brute-force tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basics but leaves gaps around authorization assumptions, runtime expectations, and result format. Adequate minimum viability, not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including mode semantics and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the mode list, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Gobuster enumeration) and resource (directory/file/subdomain targets), and names the three discovery outcomes (hidden paths, files, virtual hosts). It implicitly separates itself from nmap_scan and ffuf_fuzz by naming Gobuster's modes, but never explicitly contrasts with the similarly-scoped ffuf_fuzz sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over the closely related ffuf_fuzz tool, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid target, being authorized). The description only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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