web_vuln_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful details like Dalfox mapping threads to --worker and supports cookie/extra_args, but does not explain include_raw or broader side effects (e.g., network traffic, output formatting). This is moderate transparency but leaves gaps.

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 with a clear structure: Purpose, Constraints, Example. It avoids waste, though the trailing ellipsis suggests truncation. It efficiently conveys key information.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose, constraints, and parameter mappings, but lacks guidance on when to choose this over other scanners, omits include_raw, and does not describe the output or side effects. This is adequate but not fully complete for a complex tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of tool, target_url (via example), threads mapping, cookie, extra_args, and data (for commix), but omits include_raw. This is strong compensation for most parameters, but not complete.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb+resource ('Run web vulnerability scanners') and distinguishes it from siblings by naming the supported scanners (dalfox, commix). This makes the purpose unambiguous and unique among the sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to run dalfox or commix scans) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives (e.g., sqlmap_run, nuclei_run). It provides constraints but no exclusion criteria.

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