whatweb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It calls the tool 'Passive' but does not explain what that means (e.g., no network activity vs. non-intrusive). It also fails to mention that the tool sends HTTP requests, may require network access, or could be rate-limited. The output format is described, but the operational behavior and potential side effects are omitted.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler. The key guidance ('Use FIRST') is prominent and the output format is stated succinctly.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the output structure (structured list with versions) and usage context. It lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., misses obfuscated technologies) and does not mention runtime behavior, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the strong usage directive.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond what's in the schema. It repeats the aggressive-level example for opts, but does not clarify syntax or edge cases. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 purpose: passive web technology fingerprinting, and lists specific categories it identifies (CMS, frameworks, libraries, etc.). It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by instructing to use it FIRST before specialized tools, making its role unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance to use it first on any web target before specialized tools, implying it's a reconnaissance tool. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide. The instruction to run it first is a strong usage signal.

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