Read HackTricks Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: the default response shape (outline plus content), that long content is truncated, and the alternate modes. Truncation disclosure is especially useful for an agent planning token budget.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the mode options. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, default behavior, and alternatives — with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still supplies the crucial default-response and truncation context an agent needs. Combined with readOnly/idempotent annotations and a fully described schema, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented with examples and semantics, making 3 the baseline. The description's restatement of section= and codeOnly=true usage adds routing guidance but little semantic detail beyond the schema, such as the case-insensitive matching already noted there.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (HackTricks page), and explicitly ties the input to the sibling hacktricks_search output ('found via hacktricks_search'). This lets an agent distinguish it from hacktricks_search and hacktricks_get_toc without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly frames the context of use (consuming a page found via search) and names the two modes — section= for a single heading, codeOnly=true for commands/payloads — with the rationale that this is the token-efficient path for long pages. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over hacktricks_get_toc, leaving one sibling relationship unaddressed.

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