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 does disclose the shape of the return conceptually (categories mapped to covering scanners) and 'List' implies a non-mutating read, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, whether the mapping is static or derived from the current scan configuration, or how large the output is.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The resource being enumerated and the coverage mapping are both stated up front, and nothing is repeated.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to know what comes back (OWASP categories plus scanner coverage) and that no arguments are needed. A brief note on whether the coverage map is static or reflects current scanner availability would close the remaining gap.

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 disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals that the call is argument-free by describing a fixed catalog-style lookup.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource: OWASP MCP Top 10 categories plus which GuardBee scanners cover them. This clearly separates it from the sibling scan tools (owasp_scan_path, owasp_scan_live, owasp_scan_catalog) because it produces a coverage map rather than a scan result, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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' hints at the context in which to call it, and a zero-parameter 'list' tool is fairly self-evidently a discovery call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling scanners it references, so the agent must infer that this is an orientation step before running an actual scan.

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