web_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that httpx supports threads and whatweb uses agg_level, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it sends network requests, what side effects it might have, whether it requires authentication, or how long it might take. The description focuses on parameter mapping rather than behavioral traits, which is a significant gap.

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 well-structured with clear 'Purpose:', 'Constraints:', and 'Example:' sections, and it is mostly concise without fluff. However, the 'Constraints' section ends with an ellipsis ('…'), which may indicate truncated or incomplete information, and the constraints are presented as a run-on sentence rather than a list. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 complexity (14 parameters, 6 tool choices, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers tool selection and per-tool parameter constraints, which is valuable. However, it does not explain which tools are suited for which targets (e.g., wpscan for WordPress), whether urls is required for each tool, or what the output will look like (though the output schema may cover that). The ellipsis also suggests missing content, making it moderately complete.

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 adds meaning by listing tool-specific parameter constraints (e.g., 'httpx accepts urls or target and supports threads', 'wpscan supports enumerate and api_token'), which clarifies how to use many of the 14 parameters. However, it does not explain parameters like title, status_code, tech_detect, include_raw, or extra_args, so coverage is incomplete. The example also helps illustrate usage.

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 that the tool runs one of six web fingerprinting scanners (httpx, whatweb, wafw00f, nikto, wpscan, arjun), selected via the 'tool' parameter. This is a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_scan or sqlmap_run, which are for different types of scanning.

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?

The description implies the tool is for web fingerprinting (via 'web fingerprinting scanner') and provides per-tool parameter constraints, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions (e.g., 'use nmap_scan for network scans' or 'use web_vuln_scan for vulnerability assessment'). The usage context is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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