report_web

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing 'Authorized, non-destructive; authorized targets only' and noting the optional file-writing side effect for HTML reports. It adds useful safety context but could have detailed authentication or rate-limit considerations.

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 a clear summary, workflow, safety note, and an Args section. Each sentence contributes value, though it is slightly lengthy; it remains efficient and easy to parse.

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 existence of an output schema, the description correctly avoids re-explaining return values. It covers the overall workflow, output format, and safety constraints. It could mention more about the 'AI hunt' but is sufficient for the agent to decide when to invoke.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining 'url' as the target and 'save_html' as an optional path for the styled HTML report with an example. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema fields.

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 'Hunt' with a clear resource 'web target' and states the precise output as a 'polished security-assessment report'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like report_source or hunt by explicitly stating it combines recon + hunt into a report workflow.

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 clearly implies usage for web target security assessments and describes the internal workflow (recon + AI hunt + report). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for different scenarios, such as report_source or recon alone.

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