dirb_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The term 'brute-force' hints at possible server load but does not specify concurrency, rate limiting, or other behavioral traits. The agent lacks details about the tool's impact, such as whether it may cause heavy traffic or require specific permissions.

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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the core function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient for a straightforward tool.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat complete for a simple brute-forcing tool. However, it does not explain what the output contains, how long it might take, or any risk profile (e.g., potential service disruption). For a tool that could be aggressive, more context would benefit the agent.

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%, baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions a default wordlist path but repeats the same info. No additional semantic or usage context is provided for the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: using DIRB to brute-force discover hidden directories and files on web servers. The verb 'discover' and resource 'hidden directories and files' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nmap_scan or sqlmap_scan which have different scanning functions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nikto_scan or nuclei_scan. The description implies usage for web directory brute-forcing but does not mention prerequisites, complementary tools, or cases where it should not be used (e.g., against production servers).

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