ssrf_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key mechanism: injects unique OOB domains into request parameters, waits for callback, and confirms SSRF. It also mentions the encryption details (RSA-2048 + AES-CFB) and the near-zero false positives. It does not mention potential side effects like making outbound requests from the target to interactsh, but the mechanism itself implies this. Overall, it provides a good behavioral outline.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value. It explains the methodology and the security aspects without fluff. It is compact and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are not needed. The description explains the core functionality and detection logic. It could benefit from clarifying any prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or the expected behavior if the target is unreachable, but for a scanning tool with a well-defined schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not provide examples, relationships, or usage tips for parameters. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a URL for SSRF via out-of-band interaction, using a specific mechanism (interactsh). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sqli_scan or xss_scan, which target different vulnerability classes. The verb 'Scan' plus resource 'URL' and purpose 'SSRF' is unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates its purpose (SSRF detection) and implicitly when to use it (when suspicious of SSRF). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or call out alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear to guide an agent. No explicit exclusions are needed for this specialized tool.

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