graphql_cop

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. 'Security scanner' is vague; it does not specify whether the tool performs introspection, injection testing, or other actions, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication 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 only three words, which is concise but at the cost of completeness. It is not well-structured; it front-loads minimal information but omits crucial details, making it underspecified rather than concise.

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 low schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description fails to provide adequate context. It does not explain the output, typical use cases, or how it differs from other security scanners, leaving the agent with insufficient information to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 adds no meaning to the parameters beyond their names. 'url' and 'session_id' are self-explanatory, but without additional context on format or constraints, the agent lacks guidance for correct invocation.

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 'GraphQL security scanner' clearly identifies the target (GraphQL) and general purpose (security scanning), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other technologies like SQL (sqlmap) or DNS (dnsrecon). However, it lacks a specific verb like 'scan' or 'detect vulnerabilities', which would make it clearer.

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, such as other scanners in the same server. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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