websex_prowler

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful execution traits: argv tokens are passed directly, shell parsing is never used, execution is scoped to the engagement namespace, and artifact paths should be relative. It omits output format, permission/credential requirements, and side effects of the scan.

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 action and followed by execution mechanics and path rules. No filler, though slightly dense for the amount of information conveyed.

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. However, for a no-annotation execution tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should say more about required credentials/engagement state and what the scan produces or mutates.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'arguments' are raw argv tokens (not a shell string), that 'working_directory' semantics are relative-to-engagement, and that execution occurs in the selected engagement namespace ('engagement_id'). 'stdin' is never mentioned, so compensation is only partial.

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?

Names a concrete verb and resource ('Run prowler') and situates it in the cloud/IaC toolkit container, so the agent knows it triggers a cloud-security audit. It does not distinguish itself from sibling scanners like websex_trivy, websex_checkov, or websex_terrascan, which is the only gap.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (credentials, engagement state), and no routing to alternatives such as checkov/terrascan for IaC. Usage is only implied by 'iac toolkit'.

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