hunt

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states non-destructive, authorized targets, the sequence (recon then hunt), the scope of vulnerability classes, and the return value structure. This goes beyond what is minimally required.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds functional value (what it does, safety, return format). No wasted words.

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, workflow, safety, target authorization, vulnerability classes, and return contents. Given an output schema exists, it needn't detail the return schema further, but it omits any guidance on URL input and prerequisites, leaving a minor gap.

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 single required parameter 'url' has no schema description (0% coverage) and is not mentioned in the tool description. The description does not explain what URL format is expected or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer the meaning solely from the parameter name 'url'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and names the resource ('recon then an AI vulnerability hunt') with explicit vulnerability classes. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like secrets_hunt or param_discover by describing the combined recon-and-hunt workflow.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'authorized targets only' and 'non-destructive', implying it is safe to use on authorized engagement targets. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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