gobuster

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does this by disclosing that the tool is a brute-force tool, that it operates in multiple modes, and that output consists of 'discovered paths/subdomains with HTTP status codes.' It does not detail load, rate, or authorization side effects, but the core active behavior is transparent.

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 three concise sentences, front-loading the tool's identity and modes, then providing alternatives and output behavior. Every sentence contributes useful selection and invocation information with no filler.

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 an agent, the description is largely complete: modes, intended use, alternatives, and output format are all present. The main gap is that DNS/vhost modes typically expect a domain rather than the HTTP URL format suggested by the schema's target parameter, but this is a schema nuance rather than a prose omission. Overall, the definition is sufficient for correct tool selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description names the modes, which aligns with the 'mode' parameter, but it adds little beyond what the schema already documents. No additional parameter semantics are provided in prose.

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, multi-mode purpose: 'directory/files (dir), DNS subdomains (dns), virtual hosts (vhost), and fuzzing.' It is clearly aimed at 'discovering hidden paths and subdomains,' and explicitly distinguishes itself from dirb and ffuf. An agent can immediately understand what gobuster does and how it differs from sibling 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?

Gives explicit use guidance: use gobuster for hidden paths and subdomains, choose dirb for 'pure directory brute-force,' and use ffuf for 'parameter/header fuzzing.' This directly routes the agent to the correct sibling tool based on the task type.

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