dir_bruteforce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's underlying mode (gobuster dir), output structure (dict with status, discovered paths, command, mode), and operational prerequisites (wordlist mounted into /wordlists, host authorized). It does not mention potential aggressive network behavior or rate limits, but the core behavior is clear.

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 sections (USECASE, INSTRUCTIONS, INPUT_DESCRIPTION, etc.) and front-loaded with a clear summary. There is slight redundancy between sections (e.g., INPUT_DESCRIPTION vs Args), but each section adds value like examples and prerequisites.

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 (brute-forcing with wordlists and extensions), the description covers prerequisites, input parameters, output structure, an example invocation, and related tools. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to explain return values, but the description already does.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: target (base URL, must be in scope), wordlist (path, default common.txt), extensions (comma-separated). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare type information in the input 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 a specific action: 'Brute-force web content paths/directories (gobuster dir mode)' and its use case 'Discover hidden directories and files on an in-scope web app using a wordlist.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vhost_enum or nikto_scan.

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 clear usage context: 'Ensure host is in scope, Provide the base URL, Optionally set wordlist/extensions, Call.' It also lists prerequisites and related tools. However, it does not explicitly compare when to use this tool versus alternatives beyond naming them.

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