cors_scan

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

The description reveals the type of testing performed (various Origin headers) but does not disclose behavioral aspects such as whether it sends requests, potential side effects, or if it is read-only. This leaves some ambiguity about its execution behavior.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences without extraneous content. It is well-structured and directly conveys the tool's function.

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?

The description provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose but lacks details on expected output/return values, how parameters influence the scan, and any prerequisites or dependencies. This leaves some gaps in the overall context.

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 schema descriptions for parameters are minimal (e.g., 'URL to test', 'HTTP method'), and the tool description does not add further explanation. It does not clarify the purpose or interaction of parameters like target_id or scope_exclude/include, limiting understanding.

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 clearly states it scans for CORS misconfigurations and specifies the types of tests performed (reflected origins, null origin acceptance, wildcard with credentials), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from other scanning tools.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what the tool does, without indicating scenarios where it is preferred or how it compares to other scanners.

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