bb_dir_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only mentions brute-force and built-in dictionary, but does not disclose potential noise, rate limiting, authentication requirements, or how the tool behaves with concurrent requests or status filters. This is insufficient 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 a single short sentence, which is concise but overly so given the lack of other documentation. It front-loads the main action, but omits crucial details, making it minimal rather than efficiently informative.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema not described), the description is far from complete. It does not explain expected output, result interpretation, or any operational nuances. The output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.

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%, and the description provides no information about any of the 8 parameters. The parameter names (url, proxy, cookie, etc.) are self-explanatory to some extent but the description fails to clarify formats, defaults, or how they affect behavior. For a tool with 8 params, this is critically lacking.

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 performs directory/file brute-force with a built-in 150+ sensitive path dictionary. It uses a specific verb (爆破/brute-force) and resource (目录/文件 directories/files), and distinguishes from sibling tools like bb_subdomain or bb_port_scan which focus on different attack vectors.

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 use for discovering hidden paths, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, nor compares it to alternatives. The sibling tools list suggests many other attack types, but no differentiation is made.

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