error_page_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool actively 'triggers errors with bad input' and checks for stack traces, debug info, and internal paths, so the agent knows it is an active scan with observable request side effects. It does not mention request volume or authorization requirements, but the core active behavior is disclosed.

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 two sentences: a front-loaded headline plus a concise explanation of how the scan works. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

Combined with the full input schema and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and mechanics for an active scanner. It lacks explicit side-effect caveats or prerequisites, but these are partly implied by the active scan behavior and would be visible in the output schema.

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 100% and each parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds overall scan context but does not explain how specific parameters (e.g., body, headers, scope filters) are used beyond the 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?

The description opens with 'Scan for verbose error page disclosure,' a specific verb+resource+outcome that clearly distinguishes this from sibling scanners. It further specifies the detection signals (stack traces, debug info, internal path disclosure), removing ambiguity.

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 makes the intended use case clear: trigger errors with malformed input and inspect responses for verbose disclosure. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but no close sibling covers error-page disclosure and the context is unambiguous.

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