open_redirect_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It transparently states that payloads are injected and redirects to external domains are checked, but it does not disclose side effects such as active network requests, typical payload count, or any rate/scope considerations beyond schema.

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?

Two crisp sentences cover purpose and mechanism with zero filler. The information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 is sufficient for an active vulnerability scanner with a rich output schema; it explains the key behavior without restating schema. It does not mention scope filtering behavior, but the output schema and schema parameter docs cover much of the remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds minor value by explaining the role of URL parameters in the scan, but does not go 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Scan for') and resource ('open redirect vulnerabilities'), and clarifies the mechanism by injecting redirect payloads. The focus on open redirects distinguishes it from sibling ssrf_scan, sqli_scan, and other vulnerability scans.

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 implies usage when open redirects are suspected, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No comparisons to sibling scans are provided.

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