extensive_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses time duration and scan types, but lacks info on side effects, destructive potential (though consent is required), rate limiting, or what happens during/after the scan. The consent parameter is already in 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?

The description is a single sentence front-loaded with the key purpose and duration. It efficiently lists scan types without unnecessary words, though it could benefit from brief separators for readability.

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 moderate complexity of a comprehensive scan and no output schema, the description covers the scope and duration but omits expected output format, error handling, or post-scan behavior. It is adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to fully anticipate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with two parameters (target and consent) already documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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 it is a comprehensive scan with a list of specific activities (WAF detection, full recon, port scan, tech fingerprinting, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like quick_scan, nmap, and whatweb. The verb 'scan' and resource context are explicit.

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 use for thorough scanning and mentions time range (20-45 min), but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like quick_scan or other specialized tools. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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