tools_hydra

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters and defaults but does not discuss risks (e.g., potential disruptive impact on targets), resource usage, or that the tool may perform intensive network operations. The description lacks behavioral context.

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 clear action statement and then listing parameters in a structured Args block. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the list is somewhat lengthy. Overall well-organized.

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 annotations, the description should provide broader context (e.g., when Hydra is appropriate, what output to expect, potential side effects). It lacks completeness for a tool with many siblings and no additional structured guidance. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description carries full burden. It adds brief but meaningful explanations for all 10 parameters (e.g., 'target: Target IP or hostname', 'service: Service to attack (ssh, ftp, http-get, etc.)'), significantly enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Execute Hydra password cracking tool' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool as executing Hydra, but does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like tools_john (also password cracking). Still, the purpose is clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Given many sibling tools for different cracking tasks, this is a significant gap.

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