brute_force_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'Brute force web login form,' lacking any disclosure about destructive behavior, rate limiting, ethical warnings, or success/failure handling. This is a critical gap for an aggressive tool.

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 extremely short, which could be seen as concise, but it lacks essential content. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place by omitting necessary detail.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage on parameters, and the tool's high-risk nature, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain behavior, prerequisites, or results, making it unreliable for agent decision-making.

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%, so description must compensate, but it provides no parameter details. It does not explain what 'target_url,' 'username,' or 'wordlist' mean in context, leaving the agent to infer from names only.

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 states it will 'Brute force web login form,' which gives a specific verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from siblings like 'scan_authentication_mechanisms' or 'validate_sql_injection.' It is clear enough for basic understanding but lacks unique context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a login form is present or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., valid target URL). The description implies usage for brute forcing but gives no explicit when/when-not advice.

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