tools_hydra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or operational impact (e.g., network noise, potential for lockouts). The description provides none of this, offering no transparency about what executing Hydra actually involves.

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?

While 'Execute Hydra' is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. The minimal structure fails to convey necessary information about the tool's purpose, parameters, or behavior. It is a bare command rather than a helpful description, so it does not earn credit for efficiency.

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 (10 parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about expected inputs, how the tool operates, or what results to anticipate. This is a severe deficiency for a potentially complex security tool.

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%, meaning the description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. The schema contains only parameter names and types (e.g., target, service, port) without explanations. The description 'Execute Hydra' does nothing to clarify parameter semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set values correctly.

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 Hydra' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name without explaining what Hydra does. It lacks a specific verb+resource structure and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like tools_nmap or tools_sqlmap. An agent unfamiliar with Hydra would have no idea it is a password brute-forcing tool.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. No context about typical use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites is provided. The description only says 'Execute Hydra,' which gives no indication of how to choose it over other tools.

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