gobuster_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses rate limiting and the allowed_hosts requirement, which is useful, but does not mention network noise, external dependencies, or failure behavior. This is partial transparency.

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 an intro, Args list, Returns section, and Notes. It is not overly verbose, though it repeats some defaults already present in the schema. All sections are useful and front-loaded.

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 complexity and output schema, the description covers usage, parameters, return type, and key constraints. It lacks discussion of alternative tools and some edge cases, but is fairly complete for a scanning tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining all 7 parameters with one-line definitions and examples (e.g., extensions, status_codes defaults). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though some nuances like extension format are only hinted.

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 first sentence 'Brute-force directories, files, and virtual hosts using Gobuster' is a clear verb+resource statement. It covers the main use cases but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like feroxbuster_scan or ffuf_fuzz, though the mode parameter adds DNS subdomains.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like feroxbuster_scan or ffuf_fuzz. It only lists constraints (allowed_hosts, rate limiting) and mode descriptions, which are more prerequisites than usage direction.

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