Search HackTricks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are 'ranked pages with snippets', and it tells the agent how to phrase queries for quality results. This is real added context, not a restatement of annotations.

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 what the tool searches, then query advice, then the follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, corpus, query strategy, and next step. Nothing needed 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 (query, limit, category) are already documented with examples and bounds. The description reinforces query style with its own examples but does not add syntax or semantics the schema lacks, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Full-text search over the HackTricks offensive-security wiki') and enumerates the covered domains, so the agent knows exactly what corpus it queries. It also distinguishes itself from hacktricks_get_page by casting that sibling as the follow-up step rather than an alternative search.

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?

Gives concrete query guidance ('Use specific technical terms... for best results') and an explicit follow-up path ('Follow up with hacktricks_get_page on a result's path'). It stops short of saying when NOT to search or when to prefer hacktricks_get_toc, but the workflow routing is clear.

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