crawl_aplicacao_katana

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool crawls the web application, but does not mention the volume of requests, potential impact on the target, rate limiting (though the 'evasion' parameter hints at rate-limit behavior), or any side effects. The description adds output usage context but lacks crucial behavioral details for a security scanning tool.

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 concise—two sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose, then provide usage context and downstream hints. There is zero waste; every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the primary function and followed by practical guidance.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, all documented in schema) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's role in the pentest pipeline and how to use its output. The only gap is behavioral transparency (e.g., request pacing, stealth), but that is addressed in dimension 3. For its purpose, the description is sufficiently complete.

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% coverage for all three parameters (depth, evasion, target_url) with descriptive comments. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'URLs com parâmetros na saída' but that refers to crawl output, not the tool's own parameters. Thus, the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds little value.

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: it crawls a web application to discover endpoints and parameters using Katana. It distinguishes itself from siblings like Gobuster (directory scanning) by focusing on crawling for endpoints with parameters, and explicitly mentions that URLs with parameters are candidates for Dalfox and SQLMap, differentiating downstream use.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use após o Gobuster' (use after Gobuster), which tells the agent when to run this tool in a pentest workflow. It also suggests that output URLs with parameters should be fed into Dalfox and SQLMap, providing clear follow-up steps. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, though the context is sufficiently clear.

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