pentest_completo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only mentions autonomous execution and correct ordering. It omits the potentially invasive/active nature, authorization concerns, runtime expectations, side effects, or that brute-force steps require explicit consent.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and key distinguishing trait—autonomous, correct-order execution—in minimal space.

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?

Even with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description gives almost no operational context for a complex autonomous pipeline. It does not explain which tools run, how long it may take, what impact it may have on the target, or when the pipeline should not be used.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself is detailed enough to cover the semantics.

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 identifies this as the orchestrator for a full pentest pipeline: 'Executa o pipeline completo de pentest de forma autônoma na ordem correta.' This distinguishes it from sibling point tools like scan_portas_nmap or scan_nuclei, though it does not enumerate which phases the pipeline includes.

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 implies this is the comprehensive, autonomous option, but it does not state when to prefer it over individual sibling scanners or when to avoid it. No prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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