gobuster_dir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool checks scope before execution, but omits other important traits such as concurrency level, noise profile (e.g., requests per second), handling of large wordlists, or cancellation behavior. The description is too sparse to give an agent a clear model of the tool's runtime effects.

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 very short (two sentences), which is concise. However, it sacrifices necessary information for brevity; important details like parameter semantics and usage guidance are missing. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 tool has 3 parameters (one required), no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter options, output format (despite an output schema existing), error handling, or integration with gobuster's features (e.g., threads, status codes). The scope refusal is the only extra detail beyond the bare purpose.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions only 'url' in code formatting but does not clarify expected format (e.g., protocol, trailing slashes). The 'wordlist' and 'extensions' parameters have defaults in the schema but receive no explanatory text. The description adds virtually no semantic value over the bare parameter names.

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 the tool performs directory brute-forcing on a URL using gobuster. This specific verb-resource combination ('directory-brute-force url') distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_scan, nikto_scan, or hydra_bruteforce, which perform different security scanning operations.

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 only mentions that the tool 'refuses if the host is not in scope.yaml', which is a refusal condition rather than proactive guidance on when to use it. It does not explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over nikto_scan or other web-focused tools, nor provide context on when enumeration is appropriate.

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