assess_owasp

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key trait of passivity ('mapeo pasivo') and that the operation is fingerprinting/reconnaissance, which is meaningful. It omits target preconditions, potential side effects, and any environment requirements.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the key concepts are front-loaded. Brevity is achieved, though at the cost of some clarity and usage context.

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 that an output schema exists and there are only two simple parameters, the definition is close to adequate. However, it does not explain that the target itself is not a parameter, so an agent is left to infer that target information must come from elsewhere, such as load_target_info.

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 0%, and the description does not mention port or use_https at all. The parameter names and defaults are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value and fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names the resource (web) and the framework (OWASP Top 10) and states the method (fingerprinting/passive mapping), making the tool's role reasonably distinct from active scanning or header analysis. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb statement, and it does not directly contrast with sibling 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?

There is no guidance about when to use assess_owasp versus scan_network, analyze_http_headers, or analyze_tls. The word 'pasivo' weakly implies a non-active reconnaissance context, but no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternatives are provided.

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