owasp_scan__owasp_scan_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the orchestration behavior (seven named auditors) and the graded output, which is genuine value. It omits the scan's side-effect profile, cost/latency implications of a broad path scan, and what discoverShadow does beyond naming MCP09.

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 core action and scope before the auditor list and return value. Zero filler.

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 4-parameter orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the 'what' and the return grade but leaves the behavioral envelope thin — no mention of whether scanning is read-only, how maxFiles bounds the scan, or what a Shadow MCP discovery requires on the host.

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 75%, so path, allowlistPath, and discoverShadow are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or default information for them. maxFiles is undocumented in both places, so the description does not compensate for that gap; this sits at the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb ('Run') plus a precisely scoped resource ('unified OWASP MCP Top 10 scan over a filesystem path'), and it enumerates the seven sub-auditors it orchestrates and the A–F grade it returns. This is clearly distinguishable from owasp_scan_live and owasp_scan_catalog by scope.

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 'over a filesystem path' implies the trigger condition and implicitly separates it from the live and catalog siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or guidance on choosing this aggregate over running individual auditors like secret_scanner or oauth_auditor directly.

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