hydra_bruteforce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It does disclose key behaviors like 'userlist overrides username', 'tasks: parallel connections per target', and 'stop_on_first: stop after first valid credential found', providing some operational context. However, it omits side effects like output format, credential storage, or potential account lockouts.

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 a lean, front-loaded one-liner followed by a well-organized parameter list. Each parameter gets a concise, informative line. 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 parameter documentation is complete for invocation, but the description lacks information about output or return values (no output schema exists). It also doesn't mention service-specific nuances or integration with credential storage. Given the tool's complexity, this is a noticeable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter with examples and overrides. For instance, it clarifies that userlist overrides username and passlist overrides password, and gives example file paths. This goes well beyond the bare 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 explicitly states 'Password brute-force attack using Hydra' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like ssh_exec or msf_run_module by naming the Hydra tool and its purpose.

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?

Usage is implied through the purpose (brute-force credentials) but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The parameter list gives operational guidance but not strategic context.

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