Content Discovery

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool is aggressive, requires human approval, respects the engagement's rate limit, and warns that wordlist size affects target impact. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the openWorldHint and destructiveHint values.

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 relatively compact but includes some redundancy, such as repeating the AGGRESSIVE warning and the impact statement. The sentence 'The size of the wordlist is the size of the impact on the target...' is slightly verbose but not overly long.

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 tool has an output schema, so omitting output details is acceptable. However, the description lacks practical context such as typical use cases, dependency on prior recon, or how the tool fits into a larger workflow. It covers safety and wordlist semantics but not enough for full operational context.

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?

Only the 'wordlist' parameter is explained in detail (vetted payload store names or file paths, no default). The 'target', 'extensions', and 'max_seconds' parameters are not described at all, leaving a significant semantic gap given the 0% schema description 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 'Brute-force paths with ffuf', which is a specific verb (brute-force) and resource (paths). It clearly indicates this tool performs content/path discovery, distinguishing it from sibling tools like param_discovery or endpoint_discovery.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'AGGRESSIVE' and 'at the engagement's rate limit', but does not describe typical scenarios or contrast with sibling tools such as endpoint_discovery or fuzz_compare. Users are left to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and verb.

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