recon_directory_bruteforce

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's read-only (GET requests), performs parallel requests, sends one request per wordlist entry per extension, and returns specific metrics (found_count, paths_tested). However, it lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function, behavior, and output without any wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on output format, error scenarios, or performance implications, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'parallel curl requests' and 'one request per wordlist entry per extension', which slightly clarifies the 'extensions' parameter usage but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Directory brute-force using parallel curl requests') and resources ('Returns results (path/status/length), found_count, and paths_tested'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'recon_dns' or 'recon_quick' by focusing on HTTP directory enumeration.

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 implies usage for directory enumeration via HTTP requests but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recon_quick' or 'path_traversal_test', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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