get_hacktricks_cheatsheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it extracts all code blocks, skips explanatory text, and returns code with language tags. This is a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description appropriately sets expectations about output format and content filtering. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple extraction tool, the transparency is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that first state the primary action, then provide usage examples, then specify return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns. The sibling tools are differentiated, and the usage guidance is practical. No gaps remain.

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 only parameter 'path' has a schema description 'Path from search results'. The description does not add further details about format or constraints. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 that the tool extracts all code blocks from a page, skipping explanatory text. It gives specific examples of user intents ('give me the exploit command', 'show me the payload') that align with this tool, and effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hacktricks_page or get_hacktricks_section, which retrieve full pages or sections.

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 usage scenarios ('Perfect for: ...'), making it clear when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the positive examples are strong. The sibling tool names imply that for full prose or outlines, other tools should be used, but that is not spelled out.

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