hacktricks_quick_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: it searches, finds the best page, and returns exploitation sections and top 5 code blocks. It also discloses alias handling, which is important for query flexibility.

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, front-loaded with a clear tagline and purpose, followed by use cases and return format. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers the return format (page title, exploitation sections, top 5 code blocks) and key behaviors like alias handling and one-shot lookup. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have detailed descriptions including examples and alias handling. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a one-shot exploitation lookup, combining search and retrieval of exploitation sections and code blocks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_hacktricks or get_hacktricks_page by specifying it returns exploitation content directly.

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 explicitly lists use cases like 'how do I exploit X', 'give me X payload', 'X attack technique'. It does not provide explicit when-not usage or alternatives, but the use cases are clear and contextually differentiate from siblings.

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