owasp_scan__list_owasp_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only mapping/coverage listing with no parameters, and the nature of the operation (listing categories and coverage) implies no side effects. It does not mention whether the coverage map is static or reflects configuration, which would be useful context.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence with no filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded and the scope qualifier ("in this meta-scan") is appended efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameters, the description adequately conveys what the agent gets back (OWASP categories mapped to covering scanners). It is complete for a trivial listing tool, though it could state whether the coverage map is fixed or environment-dependent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ("List") and names the resource ("OWASP MCP Top 10 categories") plus the payload ("which GuardBee scanners cover them"). It is clear enough to distinguish from the scan-oriented siblings (owasp_scan_path, owasp_scan_live), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with owasp_scan_catalog, which sounds adjacent.

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 phrase "in this meta-scan" implies this is a reference/coverage-lookup tool rather than a scanner, which hints at when to use it. However, there is no explicit "use this when" statement, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative, so the guidance remains implied.

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