tools_gobuster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists parameters and does not discuss execution behavior, potential impacts (e.g., network traffic, rate limiting), error handling, or the fact that Gobuster must be installed on Kali. This minimal transparency is insufficient for an agent to assess safety or side effects.

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 concise, starting with a single-sentence summary followed by a structured parameter list. No extraneous information is included, and the format is easy to scan. Minor improvement could remove the 'Args:' header for even tighter structure.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on tool prerequisites (Gobuster installation), mode-specific behavior, and differentiation from similar sibling tools. The description is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 description provides brief explanations for each parameter in a structured list (e.g., 'extensions: File extensions to search for, comma-separated'), adding moderate value beyond the schema names. However, explanations are terse and some parameters like 'additional_args' lack clarity. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but could be more detailed.

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 'Execute Gobuster to find directories, DNS subdomains, or virtual hosts,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tools_amass for subdomain enumeration or tools_ffuf for fuzzing. However, it does not explicitly mention the available modes (dir, dns, vhost, fuzz) in the summary, relying on the parameter list.

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 over alternatives such as tools_amass, tools_ffuf, or tools_nikto. The description lacks explicit context about the appropriate scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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