verificar_arquivos_expostos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool runs Gobuster with a dedicated wordlist and focuses on leak detection, which implies active HTTP probing. However, it omits operational details such as request volume, potential WAF interaction, or any access requirements, so transparency is only partially addressed.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by concrete detection examples and a practical usage note. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition.

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 is sufficient for a moderately complex tool: it explains the purpose, the wordlist focus, specific file types, and where it fits in the scan workflow. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required, though a brief note on prerequisites or limitations would have made it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents target_url and evasion with useful examples. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Verifica exposição'), a concrete resource ('arquivos e diretórios sensíveis'), and the technique ('Gobuster com wordlist dedicada'). The phrase 'Use logo após o Gobuster padrão para cobertura específica de leaks' differentiates it from the sibling scan_diretorios_gobuster and other scan tools.

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 clear usage context: 'Use logo após o Gobuster padrão para cobertura específica de leaks.' This tells the agent when to run it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond the standard Gobuster scan.

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