gobuster_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the word 'asynchronous' and 'status', but does not describe the return format, possible status values, error behavior for invalid scan_id, or whether the call is blocking/non-blocking. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a status-polling 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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It stays on point and is easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description leaves out what a returned status looks like and how to interpret it. While it covers the basic purpose and parameter, it is just barely complete for an AI agent that needs to know what to expect from the call.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter (scan_id) with a clear explanation ('The scan ID returned from an async scan'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond reinforcing the async context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Check the status') applied to a specific resource ('an asynchronous gobuster scan'). It is unambiguously differentiated from sibling tools like gobuster_stop (which terminates scans) and gobuster_list_scans (which enumerates scans).

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 when a scan_id from an asynchronous scan is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like gobuster_list_scans or gobuster_stop. There is no mention of exclusions or contextual triggers beyond the basic scenario.

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