kali_web_gobuster_dir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a 'fast directory/file brute-forcing tool' with 'multi-threaded scanning,' 'customizable file extensions,' 'status code filtering,' and 'recursive scanning support.' This covers performance, functionality, and operational characteristics, though it doesn't detail error handling or output format.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a features list, and examples. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. However, the features section could be more concise, and some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'Gobuster is a fast...' after the initial enumeration statement).

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, features, and provides examples, but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration with other tools. For a brute-forcing tool with multiple parameters, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline score is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only mentioning 'url' and 'extensions' in the example without providing additional context. It does not explain interactions between parameters or advanced usage scenarios.

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 as 'Enumerate directories and files on web servers using wordlists,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kali_web_gobuster_dns (DNS enumeration) and kali_web_ffuf_fuzz (fuzzing) by focusing on directory/file 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 implied usage context through the 'Features' section (e.g., 'Fast multi-threaded scanning,' 'Status code filtering'), which suggests when this tool might be preferred. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kali_web_nikto_scan or kali_web_sqlmap_test, and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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