misconfig_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It lists what is checked but does not mention request patterns, potential side effects, or any safety considerations. It fails to convey important behavioral traits like whether it makes network requests or how aggressive the scan 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?

The description is two sentences, compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not thorough. It explains the scan scope but does not cover how the scan is executed, how scope_include/exclude affect results, or any additional context about expected findings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but gaps remain.

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% with all parameters described in the schema. The description adds context about the overall scan but does not elaborate on parameter usage or relationships. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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 the tool scans for common misconfigurations and lists specific checks (e.g., .git, .env, API keys). It is sufficiently specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping sibling tools like scan_git_secrets or scan_secrets.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling scan tools (e.g., scan_secrets, security_headers_scan, error_page_scan), the description lacks explicit context for choosing this tool over others.

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