corscanner

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

No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only vs destructive nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The minimal description leaves the agent uninformed about tool behavior.

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 only 3 words, which is concise but not efficient—it sacrifices valuable context for brevity. Every word should earn its place, but here the description is too minimal.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented required parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide essential context for proper tool invocation.

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 explain the purpose of 'url' and 'session_id' parameters. The agent lacks semantic guidance on how to use these required inputs.

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 specifies it's a scanner for CORS misconfigurations, which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from other security scanners like nmap or sqlmap.

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 other scanners. Siblings like 'nuclei', 'nikto', and 'dalfox' overlap in scanning capabilities, but no differentiation is offered.

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