search_hacktricks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return format (grouped by file, with page title, match count, etc.) and gives practical advice on limit parameter. Does not mention auth, rate limits, or destructive actions, which is acceptable for a search 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?

Three well-structured sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then return format, then workflow suggestion. Every sentence adds value.

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 explains return format and gives usage context. It covers purpose, parameter advice, and workflow. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by noting query supports regex, providing common category examples, and advising on limit values (lower=faster, set to 5 for quick lookups). Adds moderate context beyond 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 clearly states the tool searches HackTricks for pentesting techniques and returns results grouped by file with specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings by providing a workflow (search → get_hacktricks_outline → get_hacktricks_section) and recommending category filtering.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance and recommendation to always use category filter to save tokens. No direct comparison to other sibling tools but context signals show alternatives; the description indirectly suggests this as the starting point.

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