dirb

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals key behavior: dictionary-based attacks, output as found paths with HTTP response codes, and non-recursive by default. It could mention network side effects or permission needs, but the scanner nature is evident.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the scanner type, then comparing to gobuster, giving a usage rule, and stating the output and recursion default. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 three simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operational details: output format and default recursion behavior. It leaves minor gaps, such as explicit recursion override or authorization warning, but is sufficient for a straightforward scanner.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'built-in wordlists' context and does not materially deepen parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: a dictionary-based web content scanner that finds hidden directories and files. It also distinguishes itself from the gobuster sibling, so an agent can tell it apart from similar tools.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when you want a straightforward directory scan without configuring many options' and positions it as simpler than gobuster. It provides clear context for when to choose it, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or when to prefer other siblings.

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