dalfox

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose. It fails to mention whether the tool makes network requests, modifies data, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The description carries the full burden for transparency but provides none.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices all substance for brevity. Every sentence should earn its place; this sentence only repeats the tool name's implication.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no context about the scan process, expected output, or how to handle results.

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?

The description contains no information about the parameters (url, session_id, params, consent). With 0% schema description coverage, the tool's description fails to compensate by explaining parameter meanings, defaults, or constraints.

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 'XSS vulnerability scanner' clearly states the tool's purpose (scan for XSS vulnerabilities) but does not differentiate it from sibling tools that might also target XSS. However, among the listed siblings, none are explicitly XSS-focused, so it is sufficiently distinct.

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 (e.g., when to choose Dalfox over other scanners like sqlmap or nuclei). The description gives no context for usage, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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