websex_jaeles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the execution model ('executes jaeles directly with the supplied argv tokens; shell parsing is never used'), which is meaningful behavioral context for a security tool. However, it says nothing about resource usage, whether scans are destructive/active against targets, or what the output looks like.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted filler. It is well-sized, though it spends a sentence on shell-parsing mechanics while omitting what the tool actually does.

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. But with no annotations and 0% schema coverage on a 4-param tool, the description leaves stdin unexplained and never describes jaeles' purpose or scanning behavior, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0% across 4 params, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'argv tokens' clarifies the arguments array, 'engagement namespace' maps to engagement_id, and 'relative paths for engagement artifacts' hints at working_directory. The stdin parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving a real gap.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Run jaeles') and names the toolkit, but never states what jaeles actually does (a web-application vulnerability scanner). With dozens of sibling web scanners (nuclei, nikto, wfuzz, dalfox, etc.) present, an agent gets no basis to distinguish this tool's purpose from theirs.

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?

It notes that jaeles runs from the selected engagement namespace and to use relative paths for artifacts, which is operational context. But there is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer jaeles over nuclei or other scanning siblings.

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