scan_diretorios_gobuster

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 says it enumerates directories and hidden files with Gobuster, but does not describe the tool's potential impact (e.g., being noisy, requiring permissions, rate limiting) or output characteristics. This is a significant gap for a scanning tool that may be intrusive.

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 only two sentences and efficiently states the purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description provides a clear purpose and usage sequence, and the input schema documents all parameters. However, it does not mention the tool's behavior or potential side effects (e.g., being time-consuming due to brute-forcing), nor does it describe the expected output format beyond what the output schema (which exists) might cover. Given the complexity of directory scanning, the description could be more informative about the tool's operation.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already documents, such as the evasion flag for WAF/rate limiting and the default wordlist path. The schema itself provides adequate parameter 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 states the tool enumerates directories and hidden files using Gobuster, naming the specific tool and action. It also provides sequencing relative to Nmap and Nikto, distinguishing it from vulnerability scanning and fuzzing tools like Nikto and ffuf.

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 usage context: 'Use após identificar portas HTTP/HTTPS no Nmap, antes do Nikto.' This establishes a clear workflow placement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like ffuf for fuzzing, nor does it state when not to use it beyond implying it needs Nmap results.

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