generate_brute_script

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'encryption + automated login attempts', which hints at the behavior but does not disclose potential side effects, safety concerns, or prerequisites. Important details like whether the script is generated locally, if any network requests are made, or if it could be destructive are missing.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with key information ('generate brute force script') and contains no extraneous words. However, it is very short and could benefit from slightly more detail.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the typical use case, what the generated script looks like, or how to use the parameters. A more detailed description would be needed to fully support the agent in using this complex tool.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds the overall context of 'encryption + automated login' but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema's descriptions offer. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a brute force script with encryption and automated login attempts. It uses a specific verb (generate) and resource (brute force script), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_encrypt_script by explicitly mentioning brute force.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or exclusion information is provided. The description merely states what the tool does without any usage context.

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