pentest_web_dirbust

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether requests are intrusive/active, whether rate limiting or scope enforcement applies, whether the path list is truly fixed or overridable, or what the output contains. 'Small fixed list' is the only behavioral hint, which is thin for an active probing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and useful concrete examples. It is arguably over-terse for the amount of ambiguity it leaves, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For an active web-probing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out return values, scope/permission requirements, and the behavior of the optional paths parameter. An agent could invoke it but would not know what to expect or what constraints apply.

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% for two parameters. The description says the tool uses a 'fixed list' while the schema exposes an optional 'paths' array — that tension is left unresolved, and nothing is said about whether paths replaces or extends the defaults, or what format entries take.

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?

States a specific action and target: probing a 'small fixed list of sensitive paths' with concrete examples (.git/HEAD, .env). This lets an agent distinguish it from broad crawlers or scanners, though the boundary against pentest_web_secrets_scan and pentest_ctf_web_probe is never addressed.

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 phrase 'in-scope URL' hints that scope should be verified, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as pentest_web_secrets_scan or pentest_web_crawl. An agent cannot tell from the text when dirbusting is the right choice.

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