brute_force_webshell

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 discloses the brute-force method and the use of common passwords, but does not mention potential side effects like high resource usage, prolonged execution, or failure outcomes. The description adds basic behavioral context but could be more 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 concise, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second sentence enumerating usage conditions. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting with numbered conditions is well-structured.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does not explain return values or potential side effects. However, it clearly states the triggering scenarios and the tool's action, making it contextually adequate. It could be improved by mentioning what the tool returns on success or failure, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description provides no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is already clear. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Brute force webshell decryption key using common passwords.' It is specific to webshell decryption and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_webshell_key and decrypt_webshell by focusing on brute-forcing the key rather than extracting or using a known key.

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 provides explicit conditions for use: '1) Key extraction failed, 2) Decryption with known key failed, 3) Need to recover key from encrypted traffic.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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