hydra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it is a 'fast brute-force tool', implying many login attempts, and discloses the output format. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as account lockouts, network load, or the need for authorization. These are relevant for a brute-force tool and would improve transparency, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences long, with the primary purpose stated first, followed by usage instructions and a clear alternative. Every sentence contributes value—there is no fluff or repetition. The structure is clean and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and output format, which are the essentials for an agent to call it correctly. It does not explain service-specific options (e.g., how to construct http-post-form parameters), but the schema provides examples. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete, but a mention of potential error conditions or timeouts would push it to a 5.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds only a general statement about providing user/password lists and target service, which is already covered by the schema. It doesn't add syntax examples or clarify the 'opts' parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the description's contribution is minimal, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 it is a network login brute-force tool supporting 50+ protocols, names specific protocols, and explicitly distinguishes it from offline hash cracking tools (john, hashcat). The verb 'brute-force' and resource 'network services' are specific, and it mentions the output format, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage guidance: 'Use for testing password strength on network services' and provides the key steps ('Specify the target service and provide user/password lists'). It also names an alternative ('For offline hash cracking, use john or hashcat instead') which clarifies when not to use it. However, it doesn't mention when to prefer other network scanning tools (e.g., nmap) or exclusion conditions, so it is slightly short of a 5.

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