feroxbuster_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by revealing that Feroxbuster recurses by default, requires the target to be in allowed_hosts, and returns status codes, content lengths, and word counts. However, it omits potential side effects like network noise or rate limiting, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note) and front-loads the critical parameter-naming pitfall. Every sentence adds value—the comparison to Gobuster/FFuf, default recursion behavior, and allowed_hosts note are all necessary. The repeated 'target' reminder is justified given the common mistake.

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 no annotations and no schema descriptions, the tool description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and a key prerequisite (allowed_hosts). It leverages the output schema to avoid re-explaning return fields. It falls short of a 5 by not addressing potential error conditions or edge cases like invalid wordlists, which would fully round out the context for an autonomous agent.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with usage details, defaults, and constraints. For example, it notes the target parameter must be named 'target' not 'url', includes an example, and specifies max values for threads and depth. This is exemplary enrichment beyond the raw schema.

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 opening sentence explicitly states 'Perform recursive content discovery using Feroxbuster,' giving a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Unlike Gobuster or FFuf, Feroxbuster recursively discovers directories,' which clarifies its unique scope among similar tools.

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 an explicit comparison with Gobuster and FFuf, indicating when Feroxbuster's recursive behavior is advantageous. It also gives practical deployment context with the allowed_hosts prerequisite and depth control guidance, but does not fully state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for single-path fuzzing).

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