wordlist_gen

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Pure function. No network.' which is a key behavioral trait. It also describes the return type (GenReport with sample) and the hard cap via max_size. However, it doesn't mention if there are any limits on input sizes or potential errors.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, then bulleted mode descriptions with clear transformations, followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, mode details, parameter roles, behavioral traits (pure, no network), and return type. There are no obvious gaps that would hinder correct invocation.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: mode enum, brand used across modes, names for usernames, keywords for passwords/subdomains, years for passwords, and max_size as a cap. This provides all necessary semantic context beyond the raw 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's purpose: 'Generate a wordlist tailored to the target surface.' It lists three distinct modes (passwords, usernames, subdomains) with specific transformations, making it easy to understand the output. The tool's function is well-differentiated from sibling tools which focus on audits, creds lookup, etc.

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 by mode (e.g., combine brand/keywords with leet substitution for passwords). It doesn't state when to avoid using the tool, but the mode descriptions implicitly guide appropriate contexts. No explicit alternatives are given, but the sibling tools are clearly different.

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