dirs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool uses a wordlist and filters soft-404 responses, and that it requires an authorized target, but it omits request volume, read-only implications, rate limits, and result behavior.

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 two short clauses with the purpose front-loaded and zero wasted words. It is efficient, though the parenthetical and fragmentary authorization note are slightly terse for a security tool.

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?

No annotations or output schema exist, and one of two parameters lacks schema documentation. The description does not explain result format, wordlist behavior, request characteristics, or sibling-tool distinctions, leaving too much implicit for confident invocation.

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 50%: filter_size has a schema description, but url does not. The tool description alludes to soft-404 filtering but does not explain either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented url parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Découverte de chemins', and adds the technique (wordlist + soft-404 filter). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like probe or tmpl, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Cible autorisée uniquement' provides an authorization precondition, but the description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over probe, ports, tmpl, or kev. Usage is implied for authorized targets only, not explicitly compared to alternatives.

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