auth_bruteforce

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It excellently describes side effects ('Sends login requests. May trigger account lockout'), error conditions ('Rate limiting may block requests'), and provides the exact return format. This gives the agent crucial information about the tool's impact and output structure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the process flow, return format, side effects, and error conditions. It could be slightly more concise by combining some sentences, but overall it's efficient with zero wasted text.

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 a complex security testing tool with 10 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers the tool's purpose, process flow, return format, side effects, and error conditions - giving the agent everything needed to understand when and how to use this tool safely and effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all 10 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 'username enumeration and credential brute-force' with specific steps: enumerates valid usernames first, then brute-forces passwords against confirmed usernames. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'auth_cookie_tamper' or 'sqli_login_bypass' which target different authentication vulnerabilities.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (for testing login forms) and mentions specific risks like account lockout and WAF detection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes (e.g., 'sqli_login_bypass' for SQL injection-based bypass).

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