hydra_bruteforce

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 double opt-in (confirm=True) and scope constraint, which are important behavioral guardrails. However, it does not mention potential side effects (account lockouts, network impact) or what happens on success/failure, limiting transparency for a destructive tool.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds critical information (what the tool does, prerequisites).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The tool has 5 parameters (4 required, no enums). The description covers the main use case and prerequisites but lacks details on file path construction, safety considerations, and what happens if confirm=False or target is out of scope. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'target' and 'service' are brute-forced, and 'userlist'/'passlist' are local files, and clarifies that 'confirm=True' is required to execute. This adds moderate value, but it does not specify file path formats, supported service types, or the behavior when confirm=False.

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 states a specific verb ('brute-force'), resource ('target/service with hydra'), and method ('using local userlist/passlist files'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nmap_scan or crack_hash_offline, as none of those perform online credential brute-forcing.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (credential brute-forcing) and explicit prerequisites ('confirm=True', 'target must be in scope.yaml'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives; given sibling tools are all distinct, this is a minor gap.

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