owasp_scan__owasp_scan_live

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-trivial behavior: it will make outbound connections, spawn a stdio process, and issue a tools/list call to a live server. That process-spawning/network-initiation trait is valuable. However it says nothing about permissions, timeouts, side effects, or rate limits, so it is only partially transparent.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the connect-then-scan sequence with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly compressed for the amount of behavior it compresses.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally hint at the return shape; 'grade toxic-flow + tool-poisoning' vaguely implies graded findings but gives no detail. The stdio/HTTP and tools/list mechanics are covered, leaving output and permission expectations under-specified.

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 67%: url ('Streamable HTTP MCP URL') and command ('stdio command to spawn') are documented, but args is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds meaning by tying 'stdio or HTTP' to command/url, matching the baseline for a partially-covered schema.

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 concrete verb chain (connect, call tools/list, grade) against a specific resource (a live MCP server over stdio or HTTP) and names the exact checks (toxic-flow + tool-poisoning, MCP03/MCP10). The word 'live' implicitly separates it from owasp_scan__owasp_scan_path and owasp_scan__owasp_scan_catalog, 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?

It clarifies the two transport modes (stdio command vs HTTP URL), which is genuine usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or rule for choosing this tool over owasp_scan_path or owasp_scan_catalog. Usage is only implied by 'live'.

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