tools_arjun

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

No annotations are available, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Execute arjun.' reveals nothing about side effects, network activity, safety, permissions, or output format, making it entirely opaque.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no useful information to justify its brevity, failing to earn its place as a meaningful explanation.

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?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the tool demands substantial explanation for correct invocation. The description is wholly inadequate, offering no operational context or expected behavior.

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 schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning. The required 'url' and optional 'method', 'threads', and 'additional_args' are left undefined, so the agent cannot infer their purpose or format.

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 'Execute arjun.' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what Arjun does (e.g., hidden HTTP parameter discovery). It fails to provide a clear verb+resource scope and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like tools_nmap or tools_gobuster.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given a large sibling list of security scanners, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for tool selection.

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