feroxbuster_resume

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the core action but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting results), state file requirements, or how the 'background' parameter affects behavior. This covers the basics but has gaps.

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 a single 12-word sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, for a resume operation, a bit more detail (e.g., 'Resume with the same options') would improve without losing conciseness.

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 output schema, two optional parameters, and sibling tools covering other aspects, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose but lacks details on prerequisites (valid state file) or what happens after resuming.

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 already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resume' and identifies the resource as 'a previously interrupted feroxbuster scan from its state file'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like feroxbuster_scan (starts new) and feroxbuster_status (checks status).

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 the tool is for resuming interrupted scans, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like starting a new scan, which would improve guidance.

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