param_discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key safety trait, but it doesn't detail the scanning behavior (e.g., number of requests, whether it executes JavaScript or just parses static content, potential noise on target). This is a moderate gap for a security tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loads the main functionality, and uses a dash to clearly state the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description needn't explain return values. It covers the core functionality, the read-only nature, and the relationship to subsequent probing tools. It could add more detail on how JavaScript is processed, but the essentials are present for an attacker with basic context.

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 has only one parameter (url) with 0% description coverage, but the description implicitly clarifies it as the target's URL ('a target's HTML + JS'). It doesn't specify format or protocol constraints, but with a single obvious parameter, the description compensates adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mine') with a clear resource ('parameters, endpoints, and forms from a target's HTML + JS'), and distinguishes its role from siblings like http_send and intruder by framing the output as the attack surface to probe. It's unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's function.

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 this tool—before probing with http_send/intruder—by stating it discovers the attack surface. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the connection to sibling tools provides sufficient context for selection.

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