kali-mcp

by Neeraj829784

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes: multiple port scanners (nmap_port_scan, nmap_xml_scan, fast_port_scan), multiple subdomain tools (subfinder_enumerate, amass_enum, theharvester_search, recon_sweep), and two parallel scope management systems (scope_* and program_scope_*). An agent would frequently struggle to pick the correct tool without reading full details.
Naming Consistency3/5
There are two main conventions: category_action (nmap_port_scan, scope_add, asset_mark_host) and verb_noun (get_job_status, list_artifacts). Some names like server_health, html_to_text, and pcap_protocols break the pattern entirely. It's readable but not uniform.
Tool Count1/5
101 tools is far beyond reasonable for a single MCP server. The calibration specifies 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this server has more than double that. The sheer number overwhelms tool selection and creates unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The toolset covers the entire penetration testing lifecycle: recon (nmap, subfinder, theharvester), scanning (nikto, nuclei, gobuster), exploitation (sqlmap, hydra, metasploit), post-exploitation (ssh_exec, creds_store), and reporting (generate_pentest_report, analyze_findings). No obvious gaps for the Kali Linux domain.
Average 3.9/5 across 100 of 101 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 34 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'mark a vulnerability with a status,' but does not state whether the operation overwrites existing statuses, what status values are allowed, reversibility, or permissions required. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, effectively front-loading the core action. While extremely terse, every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for the simple concept, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is not complete enough. It omits critical context such as allowed status values, the meaning of vuln_id in the asset context, and any behavioral effects. Sibling tools like asset_list_vulnerabilities imply a broader workflow, but this description does not connect to it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters (status, vuln_id) with no descriptions, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names; it does not explain valid status values or how vuln_id relates to a vulnerability. The description should compensate for the lack of schema detail but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'mark' and identifies the resource 'vulnerability' with the object 'status', clearly stating the tool's basic function. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like update_finding_status, and 'mark' is somewhat generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for choosing it over similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention whether adding targets is additive or replaces the existing list, whether a program must be active, any validation performed on targets, or error conditions. For a stateful operation ('current program'), this lack of context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, an output schema, and parameter details, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not address the active program requirement, the additive behavior, target format, or relationship to other program_scope tools. The description is adequate for a trivial tool but leaves too much ambiguity for safe invocation in this complex domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines 'targets' only as an array of strings, and the description does not elaborate on the expected format (e.g., IPs, hostnames, URLs, ranges). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what constitutes a valid target, but it merely repeats the parameter name without adding meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add targets) and the resource (the current program's in-scope list), making the tool's primary function unambiguous. It is distinct from siblings like program_scope_remove_targets and program_scope_list by the verb and target. However, it does not explicitly mention how this differs from the non-program scope_add tool, so it is not maximally distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling scope-related tools (scope_add, program_scope_remove_targets, program_scope_allow, etc.), an agent gets no direction on selection criteria, such as 'use this to expand the in-scope list for the active program' or 'for checking current scope use program_scope_list'. The usage context is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose core behavioral traits such as it being a network-scanning tool that may be slow or loud, or whether it writes output. It only provides minimal parameter hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the purpose, but the parameter list is a bit terse and omits 'threads' entirely; still, no wasteful prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, placing the burden on the description; it does not address output format, expected duration, prerequisites (e.g., URL must be reachable), or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters, but it omits 'threads' entirely and gives only shallow explanations for the other three (e.g., 'auto-selects if empty' without detail).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Virtual host discovery using Gobuster', identifying a specific action (discovery) and resource (virtual hosts). This differentiates it from sibling tools like gobuster_dir or gobuster_dns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives; there is no mention of use cases or comparison with gobuster_dir, gobuster_dns, or ffuf_fuzz.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'List services' without clarifying read-only behavior, pagination, result limits, or the scope of services (e.g., asset inventory vs. scan results). The behavior is implicitly safe as a list operation, but no concrete behavioral details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List services, optionally filtered by host or service name.' Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return format, whether the tool is read-only, or how it relates to sibling tools like asset_list_hosts or nmap_service_detection. The optional port filters are also unmentioned, leaving gaps in the agent's understanding when deciding to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It mentions host and service name filters but omits min_port and max_port entirely, leaving the meaning of the port range ambiguous. This does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly names the resource 'services', along with optional filtering by host or service name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_list_hosts and asset_list_vulnerabilities, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the tool lists services with optional filters, giving agents a sense of when to invoke it. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nmap_service_detection or asset_list_hosts, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only lists parameters and their meanings, but does not disclose expected behavior such as pagination, ordering, result format, or any side effects. It does not even state that this is a read-only operation. The parameter list is not a substitute for behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence or fragment serves a clear role. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., a full sentence for each parameter), but it avoids fluff and gets to the point efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description provides essential parameter semantics but lacks information about return values, pagination behavior, or usage context. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps regarding what the response looks like and when to use it, which would require the agent to infer or experiment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions are completely absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It defines each parameter: status with allowed values, min_scan_count as a minimum, and limit as max results. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema properties. However, it does not detail value formats, case sensitivity, or other nuances, so it is good but not perfect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'List all known hosts.' It distinguishes from siblings like asset_get_host (single host) and asset_list_services (services), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from asset_search which could also list hosts. Purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 asset_search or asset_get_host. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get all findings') but does not explain what 'current engagement' means, what happens if no engagement is active, or any side effects or permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool that depends on session context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is minimal and well-structured: one core purpose line followed by three parameter bullet points. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (the main function) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what a finding looks like, how 'current engagement' is determined, and what happens if there is no active engagement. It also does not clarify how it differs from similar sibling tools like get_findings. The description is too sparse to be fully self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing all three parameters with concise meanings: 'min_severity: info, low, medium, high, critical', 'host: filter by specific host', and 'limit: max results'. This adds valuable semantic information beyond the bare schema properties, though it could be more detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get all findings for the current engagement.' This is a specific verb+resource combo, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_findings, which might serve a similar purpose. The scope 'current engagement' adds helpful context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., an active engagement), or situations where another tool (like get_findings) would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is that it operates on the current engagement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that it 'removes scripts, styles, tags' and 'returns clean readable text.' However, it does not cover edge cases (e.g., malformed HTML, entities, whitespace handling), which would be valuable for a utility tool. It provides basic but not deep transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose in the first line, behavior in the second, and parameter in the third. The parameter line is redundant with the schema, but it is short and does not significantly bloat the description. Overall it is efficient and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter utility, the description conveys the essential function and output. However, it lacks return-format details (no output schema), usage alternatives, and edge-case behavior. It is adequate but not thorough; a slightly richer description would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, and the description merely repeats the parameter name and type ('html: HTML string') already evident from the schema. It adds no extra meaning about expected format, encoding, or whether HTML content or a URL is acceptable. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Strip') and resource ('HTML tags') and the outcome ('extract visible text'). It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, none of which aim to convert HTML to plain text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like extract_links or http_request, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose the behavioral profile. It mentions rate_limit and concurrency parameters, implying network activity, but it does not explicitly state that this is an active scan that sends numerous HTTP requests, potential target impact, or what output the scan produces.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact bullet list of parameter definitions preceded by a one-line summary. It is efficiently structured, with no filler, and each line conveys necessary usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All parameters are documented, which is good, but the description doesn't mention the return value or expected output (no output schema exists), nor does it explain how this tool fits among the many sibling scanning tools. This leaves a gap for an agent needing to understand scan results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining every parameter with concrete examples, including template paths, severity values, tags, and defaults for rate_limit and concurrency. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs vulnerability scanning using Nuclei templates, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from generic nmap or nikto scans by mentioning template-based scanning, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose nuclei_scan over alternatives like nmap_vuln_scan, nikto_scan, or wpscan_scan. The description only explains its own function without contextualizing use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add targets' but does not reveal whether this appends to the existing list, replaces it, or requires an active program scope, nor does it describe any side effects or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough. It ignores key operational details such as whether targets are added incrementally, what constitutes a valid target, and what the tool returns. The simplicity of the tool does not excuse missing this essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only the type 'array of strings' for 'targets' with no description. The description repeats the term 'targets' without clarifying the expected format (e.g., domain, IP, URL) or any constraints. This leaves a significant gap in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds targets to the out-of-scope (deny) list, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the action from other scope-related tools like program_scope_allow, which presumably manages the allow list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 program_scope_deny or scope_add. There are no explicit usage contexts, exclusions, or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or behavior when the target is not in scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but context is ambiguous due to sibling program_scope_remove_targets. It does not clarify which scope (engagement vs program) or target format, and there is no output schema to clarify return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'specific target' but does not clarify target format (e.g., IP, hostname). Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the target string semantics undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Remove' with a clear object 'specific target from scope'. It differentiates from siblings like scope_clear by emphasizing 'specific target'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like scope_clear or scope_set. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'show' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens when no active engagement exists, whether the findings summary includes counts or full details, or how the result is structured. With zero annotations and no output schema, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose. There is no fluff or redundant detail—every word earns its place. This is an example of excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a simple status tool with no parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should clarify the expected return value (e.g., what exactly a 'findings summary' contains) and edge cases like no active engagement. It's adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no ambiguity because there are no parameters to explain. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: showing the current active engagement and its findings summary. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('current active engagement'), which distinguishes it from vague tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like engagement_findings or get_findings, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor exclusions for when to use engagement_findings or get_findings. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool's name and simple description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Generate a structured report' without describing return values, side effects, or required permissions. The description adds little beyond what the tool name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently integrates parameter explanations without unnecessary filler. The multi-line format, while not formal, is still readable and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the report looks like, how it is returned, or how it differs from the sibling generate_pentest_report. The lack of context around the report structure and tool selection leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter in plain language: job_ids are from list_jobs or get_job_status, title is the report title, and format is 'markdown' or 'json'. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Generate a structured report from completed job results', which uses a specific verb and resource. However, there is a sibling tool 'generate_pentest_report' that likely overlaps in purpose, and the description does not differentiate between them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by saying job_ids come from list_jobs or get_job_status, which gives some context. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_pentest_report, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, so the description adds limited value. It discloses that results are 'recent' and include 'statuses', but does not explain what 'recent' means (e.g., time window) or the effect of the limit parameter. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the core action ('List') and object ('jobs'). Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, readOnly annotation), the description covers the essential purpose and return content. It does not explain the limit parameter or ordering, but for a basic list operation, the level of detail is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the limit parameter. It does not mention limit at all. The limit parameter is simple and self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List recent jobs with their statuses', specifying the action (list), resource (jobs), and content (statuses). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_completed_jobs, which also list jobs, so it lacks the specificity needed for a top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like list_completed_jobs or get_job_status. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to similar tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the intention to allow a target but does not disclose what changes are made, whether the action is persistent, what success/failure responses look like, or any side effects on other scope lists. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately brief for the apparent simplicity of the tool, though its brevity sacrifices informative content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not explain the full context: whether the allowance overrides existing out-of-scope rules, how it interacts with program_scope_list, or what the result is. For a scope-management tool, this leaves significant ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only has a 'target' string with 0% description coverage. The description merely reiterates 'a target' without clarifying the expected format (e.g., IP, domain, URL), validation rules, or whether it supports wildcards. It provides no additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: explicitly allowing a previously out-of-scope target. It uses a specific verb 'allow' and identifies the resource 'target', distinguishing it from sibling tools like program_scope_deny that remove such allowances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: when a target is out of scope but the user wants to permit it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other scope modification methods like program_scope_add_targets, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action ('Get') and resource, but does not disclose behavior such as whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the host does not exist, or the structure of the returned details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is almost too terse and lacks supporting context, but it is not verbose or redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately clear about the core function, but it stays minimal. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes or provide context on using this tool in a workflow with sibling tools like asset_search.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'host_ip'. The description merely says 'a specific host', adding minimal meaning beyond the parameter name itself. It does not specify format, examples, or potential constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific host'), clearly indicating the tool retrieves detailed information for one host. This distinguishes it from siblings like asset_list_hosts (list) and asset_search (search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific host IP is known, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like asset_search or asset_list_hosts. There is no direct guidance on when to use this tool instead of others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states the allowed statuses but does not explain whether marking overwrites an existing status, whether the host must already exist, or any other behavioral implications. This is a mutation tool but lacks transparency about its effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the action and key parameter values. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality and allowed statuses, but it lacks important context: whether the host must exist, whether statuses are case-sensitive, and what happens on success or failure. Given no output schema and no annotations, these gaps make it slightly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It lists the valid status values, which clarifies the 'status' parameter. However, it does not define each status's meaning or specify the expected format of 'host_ip' beyond what the schema title indicates. This partial compensation merits a moderate score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'mark' with a clear resource 'host' and states the exact purpose: to set a status. It distinguishes from asset_mark_vuln by focusing on host status, and the status values are enumerated. This is clear and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like asset_mark_vuln or asset_search. The description implies the tool is for adjusting host status, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a destructive action, but it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, if any confirmation is required, or what happens if the credential ID does not exist. This lack of side-effect disclosure is a significant gap for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter delete tool, the description provides the core purpose and parameter context. However, it omits details about return values, error behavior, or any confirmation step. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally viable but leaves out important operational context for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides type and name for cred_id, with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'by its ID' clarifies that cred_id is the identifier of the credential to be deleted, adding essential meaning. However, it does not elaborate on the format or any additional constraints, so it falls short of fully compensating for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Delete'), a clear resource ('credential from the vault'), and a precise criterion ('by its ID'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like creds_store, creds_list, and creds_use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with other credential-related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scan components (OS, version, scripts, traceroute), which is useful behavioral info. However, it does not mention potential side effects like network noise, slowness, or disruptiveness, which are important for an aggressive scan.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short lines. The first line clearly states the scan technique and flags, the second clarifies the target argument format. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool like an aggressive nmap scan, the description is minimal. It lacks expected output format, runtime expectations, risk warnings, and integration with other tools. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate, but it does not provide enough context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies the 'targets' parameter (IPs/ranges/hostnames). The 'ports' parameter is left undocumented in both schema and description; no guidance on format, ranges, or special values is given. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for one parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs an aggressive nmap scan (-A) that covers OS detection, version detection, default scripts, and traceroute. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('targets'), and the details distinguish it from sibling tools like nmap_port_scan or nmap_os_detection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other nmap variants. It does not mention alternatives or exclusionary scenarios (e.g., 'use fast_port_scan for quick checks'). The only implied usage is that it is aggressive, but no concrete decision criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the -sV flag and a version_intensity range. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., intrusive probes, slow execution, root requirements), what happens on failed detection, or whether the scan can be safely run on production systems. The behavioral transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: a single-line purpose followed by a parameter hint. Every word earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (network service detection with intensity levels) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., service name, version, CPE), any prerequisites like existing port scans, or operational considerations such as scan time. The description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent for invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only explains 'version_intensity' with its range and meaning, but leaves 'targets' and 'ports' undefined. The parameter names are somewhat intuitive, but users are not told target format (IP, hostname, CIDR) or port syntax (e.g., '22,80' vs '1-1000'). The description adds value for one parameter but fails to cover the others.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Detect service versions on open ports') and includes the specific nmap flag '-sV', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_os_detection or nmap_port_scan. The verb+resource+scope is explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (run after a port scan has identified open ports) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or why one might choose this over nmap_aggressive_scan or nmap_xml_scan. The usage context is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists vulnerabilities and can be filtered, leaving out pagination, response structure, default limit, or whether any side effects occur. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The allowed value lists are directly attached to the relevant parameters in a compact format, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not clarify whether the list covers all assets or a specific asset, what 'limit' controls, or what the response contains. It also does not differentiate from related asset tools in terms of context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides allowed values for min_severity and status, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, host_ip is only vaguely referred to as 'host', and limit is not explained at all, so compensation is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists vulnerabilities, with specific optional filters by host or severity. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_list_hosts and asset_list_services. The allowed values for min_severity and status further clarify the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to list vulnerabilities, and the provided allowed values for min_severity and status offer some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor exclusions (e.g., use asset_mark_vuln to update status).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the description. The description adds the behavioral context that the job is asynchronous, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential error conditions or what constitutes 'result' in more detail, so it provides only moderate added value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't specify the format or structure of the returned status/result, and given a sibling 'get_job_output', it's unclear how they relate. No output schema exists to fill the gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, job_id, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description says 'by its ID', which clarifies that job_id refers to the identifier of an async job. This compensates for the missing schema information, though it is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the status and result of an async job by ID. The verb 'get' and the resource 'status and result of an async job' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'get_job_output', which may also return results, so a small deduction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'list_jobs' or 'get_job_output'. The description implies usage when you have a job ID, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses helpful behaviors: wordlist auto-selection when empty, and show_ips affecting IP address output. However, it omits critical details such as return format, network impact/noise, or concurrency behavior, leaving some important traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Exceptionally concise and well-structured. The main purpose occupies the first line, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a basic summary but is incomplete: it fails to explain the threads parameter, what the result looks like, or any operational caveats (e.g., speed, DNS resolution behavior). Given the tool's complexity, more context is needed for a minimal viable description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains three of four parameters: domain (with example), wordlist (with auto-select behavior), and show_ips (with meaning). It completely omits 'threads', and because schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for all parameters. It partially does, but the threads gap is significant.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear, specific statement: 'DNS subdomain brute-force using Gobuster.' This identifies the verb (brute-force), resource (DNS subdomains), and tool (Gobuster), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gobuster_dir and gobuster_vhost.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like subfinder_enumerate or dig_lookup. It implies active brute-force through the wordlist parameter, but it never states when to choose this over passive enumeration or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Behavioral transparency is limited. The description discloses the sudo behavior ('Automatically uses sudo if not root'), which is useful, but it does not mention that OS detection sends packets, may be noisy/slow, or what output format to expect. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides two key operational facts: sudo auto-elevation and acceptable target formats. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about the scan's behavior, output, and potential impact. It only covers target syntax and privilege handling, leaving significant gaps for a network scan tool that may have security and performance implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'targets' is given meaning by the description: 'IPs/ranges/hostnames'. This adds value beyond the bare schema, which lacks any description. However, it could be more detailed (e.g., examples of range notation like CIDR or hyphenated ranges), but for one parameter it is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'OS detection scan (-O)' – a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguously distinguished from sibling nmap tools like port scan, service detection, or vulnerability scan by explicitly naming OS detection and the -O flag.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nmap_port_scan or nmap_service_detection. The description only provides what the tool does, not when to choose it. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to fall back on, and the description only states the action without disclosing side effects like overwriting existing templates or downloading from the internet. The update operation's implications are entirely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, suitable for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and usage guidance, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention when updates should occur, what 'Nuclei templates' are, or any consequences of running the update, leaving the agent without sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly avoids parameter details. The schema confirms no parameters exist, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Nuclei templates'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like nuclei_scan which perform scanning. It states exactly what the tool does in unambiguous terms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites such as needing network access or when it is appropriate to update templates before running nuclei_scan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the removal action but omits specifics about reversibility, validation, prerequisites, or side effects, which is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple one-parameter interface, but the description lacks context about program state requirements and consequences, especially given the family of program_scope tools. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only echoes the parameter name 'targets' without defining acceptable formats, whether targets must already exist, or how removal interacts with the current program. It adds little beyond the bare array-of-strings definition in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the resource ('targets' from the 'current program's in-scope list'), clearly distinguishing it from related sibling tools like scope_add or program_scope_add_targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('current program') but does not explicitly state when to choose this over similar tools such as scope_remove or program_scope_out_of_scope. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Search assets...' but does not mention that the operation is read-only, what the response includes (e.g., list vs. detail), whether pagination applies, or any rate limits. The description adds no insight beyond the immediate action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a minimal but functional overview. It does not specify the return format or whether 'assets' encompasses hosts, services, vulnerabilities, or all types. Given the surrounding asset-related tools, more context about the result set and how it aligns with other asset tools would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one 'query' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by indicating the query can be an IP, hostname, service, or CVE, giving context to the otherwise opaque parameter. However, it does not explain accepted format, case sensitivity, or whether multiple criteria can be combined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search assets by IP, hostname, service, or CVE.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (assets), and scope (specific query types), and distinguishes it from listing tools like asset_list_hosts or asset_list_services by indicating a focused search capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The implied usage is to find assets matching a query, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as asset_list_hosts or asset_list_services, nor any mention of exclusions or fallback tools. The context is clear but under-explored.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 function. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, or any prerequisites. The description only lists parameters, leaving the agent without information about side effects or runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and to the point, with each parameter on its own line. It avoids unnecessary prose and earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with a brief opening sentence about when to use it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple DNS lookup, the description covers parameter semantics well, but it lacks behavioral context such as output format, network requirements, or any side effects. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should offer more context about what the tool returns and how it behaves, making it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with examples. 'domain' is defined as the target domain, 'record_type' includes a list of valid values, 'dns_server' is clearly optional, and 'short' describes its boolean effect. This is complete and adds meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'DNS lookup using dig', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dig_zone_transfer by implying a standard lookup rather than a zone transfer, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied through the parameter list (domain, record_type, etc.) and the tool name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like whois_lookup or dig_zone_transfer. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Attempt' hints at possible failure, but the description does not mention network impact, authorization requirements, error behavior, or what happens on a successful transfer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. The two parameter lines are short and add relevant semantic context without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is adequate, but it lacks information about expected output, success/failure indicators, or when zone transfers are typically appropriate. Without annotations or an output schema, a bit more context would round it out.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by clarifying 'domain' as the target and 'nameserver' as the server to request the transfer from. This goes beyond the bare property titles in the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Attempt DNS zone transfer (AXFR)' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dig_lookup and other DNS-related utilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description does not explain when a zone transfer should be attempted or which conditions (e.g., authorized nameserver) are required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a side effect ('clear scope restrictions'), but it does not state whether closing is irreversible, requires permissions, or impacts existing findings or job runs. The main verb 'Close' is largely redundant with the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and immediately states the key side effect, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple zero-parameter, no-output-schema nature, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention whether an active engagement is required, whether the action is reversible, or what happens after closing, leaving some operational ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies since there is no demand for parameter explanation. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses an active verb ('Close') with a clear resource ('the current engagement') and adds a specific effect ('clear scope restrictions'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like engagement_status or engagement_start by indicating the termination action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as program_scope_end or engagement_status. It does not mention prerequisites like an active engagement or that it should be used at the end of a session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses useful behaviors: asynchronous by default, wait to block, root-only for SYN scans, and timing presets. However, it omits side effects, permissions beyond root, rate limits, or what the job_id represents, and there are no annotations to fill in these gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Compact and scannable with a clear parameter list. Every line delivers necessary information, though using markdown formatting could improve readability slightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core scan parameters and async/blocking behavior, but leaves gaps around job_id usage, output structure, and how to retrieve results. It also doesn't mention timeouts or larger integration context, making it adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains every parameter with examples and valid values. It clarifies port formats, scan_type variants, timing meanings, and wait behavior, going well beyond the bare schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Begins with the specific verb-resource pair 'Port scan' and clearly conveys the async/blocking behavior. It is distinct from nmap_service_detection and nmap_os_detection, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from fast_port_scan or other port-scanning tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides parameter usage but contains no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like fast_port_scan or nmap_vuln_scan. No exclusions, prerequisites, or situational recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the key behavior: blocking even if in scope. However, it doesn't mention permanence, reversibility, permissions, or how this interacts with other scope operations. The description adds minimal but important behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is correctly front-loaded with the action. It earns its place by stating the core behavior. However, the typo 'if if' slightly reduces its polish and precision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It explains the effect but omits context about how deny relates to allow, whether it's persistent, or what happens to the target's scope status. Given the presence of scope management siblings, a bit more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'target' with no description (coverage 0%). The description only says 'deny a target,' which merely repeats the parameter name. It does not explain what format or type of target is expected (e.g., IP, domain, URL), so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: to explicitly deny a target, overriding its in-scope status. The verb 'deny' is specific, and the resource is 'a target.' It distinguishes from siblings like program_scope_allow or scope_add by emphasizing the explicit denial even when in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when a target is in scope but needs to be blocked. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from scope_remove or program_scope_out_of_scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what happens when no active scope exists, whether any state is changed, or what the return value format is. This is minimal transparency for a tool that could have edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description could explain more about what 'current active program scope' means or what the output looks like. However, it does provide a clear high-level intent. The context is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks detail about return values or edge cases, making it a minimal viable description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain. The schema already indicates an empty properties object, and the description does not conflict with this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Show') and the resource ('current active program scope'), which is specific and distinguishable from siblings like program_scope_list that list all scopes or program_scope_start that initiates a scope. The verb+resource pairing is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used to check the active scope before starting or modifying a program, nor does it reference program_scope_list or other sibling tools. The usage context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that passive mode avoids active probing and is safer/faster, and that brute_force is slow. However, it does not explain what active mode entails, potential network impact, or any side effects like storing results. Some transparency, but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and then lists parameters in a structured, easy-to-parse format. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values and prerequisites. It covers parameters well and hints at safety, but does not describe the output format, whether results are saved, or how to handle active mode. Some gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters: domain (with example), passive (mode and effect), brute_force (slow), timeout_mins (default). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds value beyond the schema's type/title definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'In-depth subdomain enumeration using OWASP Amass', specifying the verb (enumerate), resource (subdomains), and tool. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool subfinder_enumerate, but the tool name and mention of Amass differentiate it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like subfinder_enumerate or other recon tools. Parameter hints (e.g., passive is safer, brute_force is slow) imply some usage context but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that passwords/hashes are encrypted at rest, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether storing overwrites existing entries, how duplicates are handled, whether any authentication is required, or what the success/failure response looks like. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list. It avoids fluff and each line provides needed information. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter list is necessary because the schema lacks descriptions. The front-loading of the main purpose is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core function and parameter semantics well. However, it omits operational context such as idempotency, overwrite behavior, or whether the vault must be initialized. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully complete for all potential questions an agent might have when invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a list of all 8 parameters with brief explanations, including examples (e.g., service types, source_tool values) and a conditional note ('leave empty if only hash available'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's mere property names, though it could be slightly more detailed for service/port validation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Store discovered credentials in the vault' with the added detail of encryption at rest. This uses a specific verb ('store') and resource ('credentials in the vault'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like creds_list, creds_use, and creds_delete by indicating it is the write operation for credential storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you have discovered credentials that need to be persisted, this is the tool to use. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creds_use, creds_list) or any exclusions. The parameter descriptions hint at the intended context but do not offer clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it does specify two actions (close scope, clear restrictions), it omits any mention of irreversibility, required prior state (e.g., must have an active program scope), or side effects on ongoing operations. This is a potentially destructive operation, but the description gives no warning or context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Close') and immediately states the effect. No waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter lifecycle tool, the description is reasonably complete. However, in the context of many sibling tools, it doesn't explain the relationship to 'program_scope_start' or when this should be invoked in a workflow. Still, the simplicity of the operation reduces the need for extensive detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and there is nothing additional to explain about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: closing the current program scope and clearing scope restrictions. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scope_clear' and 'program_scope_start'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention that it should be used after starting a program scope, or any exclusions (e.g., don't use if you only want to remove one target). Sibling tools like 'program_scope_remove_targets' imply alternative use cases, but no comparison is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a network scan, if it requires credentials, potential side effects, or error behavior. The description is purely functional and lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each parameter is explained, but there is slight redundancy ('leave empty for anonymous' repeated). Overall, it is concise and structurally clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basics: target, credentials, and port. However, it lacks guidance on output format, authentication failures, or when this tool is preferable to other SMB enumeration tools, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning beyond the schema: target is IP/hostname, username/password empty for anonymous, port default 445. This provides practical context not present in the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List SMB shares' and the resource 'target host', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling scan tools. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by explaining parameter values (e.g., empty username/password for anonymous), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternative tools like enum4linux_scan or nmap_service_detection. It's minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions passive behavior, the all_sources trade-off (slower but thorough), thread usage for concurrency, and the output_json flag for structured output. However, it does not disclose the default output format (though schema default is true), what fields appear in JSONL, or any dependencies like API keys. This is moderate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with its core purpose. The bullet-point parameter explanations are each useful and directly tied to the schema. No word is wasted, and the structure makes it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It only mentions that output_json gives JSONL, but does not describe the JSONL structure or what data is included (e.g., hostname, IP, sources). It also omits prerequisites. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps in return-value clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain each parameter. It does this thoroughly: domain gives an example, all_sources explains the speed/thoroughness trade-off, threads explains concurrency, and output_json explains the structured output benefit. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema and fully compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs 'Passive subdomain enumeration using subfinder' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like amass_enum, which also perform subdomain enumeration, so it misses the opportunity to distinguish itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'passive' which implies a use case, but does not state exclusions or contrast with other subdomain enumeration tools (e.g., amass_enum). This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action and target format. It does not disclose network behavior, response structure, rate limits, or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately informative. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers purpose and parameter format adequately. Return value expectations are not stated, but are reasonably implied by 'WHOIS lookup'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only declares target as a string with no description. The tool description compensates by specifying allowed values: domain or IP, and provides an example, adding meaningful context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'WHOIS lookup' for a domain or IP address, with a specific resource type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dig_lookup (DNS) and nmap_host_discovery (network scanning).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 dig_lookup or asset_search. The description only clarifies the target parameter, not the use case or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 parameter behaviors (max_time, timeout, ssl) but omits broader behavioral traits: that this is an active, potentially intrusive scan that sends requests to the target, may require authorization, or could produce side effects. For a vulnerability scanner, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a tight bullet list with a clear one-sentence purpose up front. Every line adds information—no fluff, no repetition. It is appropriately sized for a tool with five simple parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the result of the scan will look like (e.g., job output, findings, reports). It also fails to mention any side effects or prerequisites. For a 5-parameter scanner, the description covers inputs well but leaves the output and postconditions unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so effectively: 'target: host or URL (e.g. ...)', 'max_time: nikto's internal max scan time e.g. '10m', '20m', '1h'', and clarifies the ssl/port interaction. It adds format examples and practical guidance beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear, specific verb phrase: 'Web server vulnerability scan using Nikto.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_vuln_scan (network vuln scan) and wpscan_scan (WordPress-specific). The tool's scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The first sentence implies usage for web server vulnerability assessment, and parameter hints (like 'use 443 with ssl=True') give some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., nuclei_scan, wpscan_scan), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the tool's function and script parameter values. It does not mention whether the scan is invasive, requires special permissions, could impact target systems, or how long it might take. This lack of behavioral context is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, combining a clear one-line purpose with a compact parameter explanation. Every sentence adds information, and the structure front-loads the main purpose before explaining the parameter values. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally acceptable: it states the purpose and explains the key parameter. However, it does not describe what the output looks like or how to interpret the results, which would be useful for an NSE vulnerability scan. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds valuable meaning by explaining the 'scripts' parameter, listing valid categories ('vuln', 'safe', 'vuln and safe', 'exploit') and giving a concrete example. It does not explain 'ports' or 'targets', but these are fairly self-explanatory given the nmap context. The description compensates well for the schema gap on the most non-obvious parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as an NSE vulnerability script scan, which is a specific type of nmap scan focused on vulnerability detection. It distinguishes from siblings like nmap_port_scan and nmap_service_detection by naming the exact category and even listing possible script categories and an example script.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for running NSE vulnerability scripts, which gives a clear context for its use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternative scans like nmap_aggressive_scan, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool reads a PCAP file and returns structured findings by protocol, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any constraints (e.g., file size limits, supported protocol versions, or how errors are reported) or whether it saves results to disk. This is adequate but not comprehensive for a security tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, a bulleted list of extraction targets, a parameter explanation, and a return-value note. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition. The line breaks make it scannable and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description needs to cover the input, purpose, and return shape. It does cover these adequately, but it lacks usage context (when to use vs siblings) and any detail on error behavior or performance. Overall, it is a minimum viable description: acceptable but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for the single parameter. It specifies that pcap_path must point to a .pcap or .pcapng file, adding the accepted file formats that the schema (string type) does not convey. This extra context fully explains the parameter's expected value, though it could also mention path handling (relative vs absolute) for a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Extract') with a clear resource ('PCAP file') and enumerates exactly what it extracts (HTTP requests, FTP/Telnet/SMTP credentials, DNS queries, usernames/passwords). This level of specificity distinguishes it from generic query tools like tshark_query and from sibling pcap_protocols, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention pcap_protocols for protocol listing, tshark_query for arbitrary queries, or any prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The only implicit usage clue is the extraction focus, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between multiple PCAP-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 that the scan runs in parallel and includes specific tools, and it notes depth variations, but it fails to mention potential intrusiveness, runtime expectations, or output format details. This is a significant gap for a tool that actively scans targets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and include all essential information without redundancy. The structure is efficient, covering purpose, depth options, and return value with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex multi-scanner tool, the description gives a good high-level overview but omits details about output structure, time expectations, or caveats. It is adequate for basic understanding but not complete enough for an agent to fully anticipate execution behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the depth parameter's values: 'light' (quick), 'normal' (default), 'deep' (thorough with ffuf). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema. The url parameter is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it performs a full parallel web application scan using multiple tools (nikto, gobuster, nuclei, crawler) and returns consolidated findings. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nikto_scan or gobuster_dir by emphasizing the combined simultaneous approach.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the all-in-one web scanner versus individual tools, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. The depth parameter provides some context for tuning, but there is no explicit guidance on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It implies a read-only check but doesn't explicitly state that, and it omits details about return format or behavior when the binary is missing. However, the verb 'check' and the phrase 'where it is' convey a basic non-destructive nature, earning a middle score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the parameter with examples. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter utility with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It doesn't explicitly explain return values or error behavior, but 'where it is' hints at the output. It's adequate for a simple tool, though a bit more detail would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines 'name' as a string, but the description adds meaning by explaining it is the binary name and provides examples ('nmap', 'sshpass', 'msfconsole'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and clarifies the expected input format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('check'), resource ('binary'), and outcome ('installed and where it is'). It provides concrete binary name examples, making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from the many scanning/exploit tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. The description implies you use it to verify binary presence, but it doesn't state scenarios like 'before running a tool that depends on this binary' or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential output volume. The phrase 'List all' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It conveys the purpose and scope directly and efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. It does not specify what is included in an 'engagement' listing (e.g., fields, pagination), but given the tool's simplicity and the existence of sibling tools for detailed views, this is not a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters to document, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'engagements', with scope 'all (past and active)'. This distinguishes it from engagement_start, engagement_end, and engagement_status, which are sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you want to list all engagements, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are provided, so it relies on the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, and it does disclose some behaviors: auto-selecting common.txt if wordlist is empty, using '' for exclude_codes to show all, and following redirects. However, it fails to mention important traits like output format, whether the tool runs asynchronously (suggested by sibling jobs tools), or how results are retrieved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise bullet-style list, front-loading the purpose and then detailing each parameter. Every line earns its place, with no redundant filler. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating description from parameter docs), but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values and execution behavior, but it does not. It also doesn't mention whether results are returned directly or via job status/output tools, which are present in the sibling list. This leaves a significant gap for an agent invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with added meaning. It provides an example for extensions ('php,html,txt'), clarifies the wordlist default behavior, and explains the exclude_codes special case of '' to show all. This goes far beyond the schema's type/default info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Directory and file brute-force using Gobuster,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like gobuster_dns and gobuster_vhost. It uses a specific verb (brute-force) and resource (directories/files), leaving no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for directory/file brute-force but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as ffuf_fuzz or web_crawl. It includes some operational context (e.g., wordlist auto-selection) but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain key behaviors such as redirect following, timeout handling, saving to a file, and extracting visible text from HTML, plus it states the return fields (status, headers, body, redirect chain, timing). However, it does not disclose the side effects of methods like POST/PUT/DELETE or how errors/timeouts are reported, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact bullet list of parameters followed by a one-line return specification. The opening sentence states the core purpose, and every line provides necessary information without fluff. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the most important info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists return values, including redirect chain and timing. It covers the main parameters and their effects. However, it lacks examples, error-handling semantics, and guidance on how the response body is structured (e.g., JSON vs text), so it is not fully comprehensive for all use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief gloss for every parameter: url is the target, method lists allowed values, headers/cookies are dictionaries, data is the request body for POST/PUT, follow_redirects defaults to True, timeout is in seconds, save_to files the response, and extract_text strips HTML tags. These explanations add meaning beyond the schema's bare names/types, though some details (e.g., JSON encoding, header merging) remain implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear, specific action: 'Make an HTTP request and inspect the full response.' It names the resource (URL) and the variety of HTTP methods, making it obvious this is a generic HTTP client. Although it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like http_form_submit, the broad capabilities and method list set it apart from specialized network scanners.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists parameters but gives no context about preferred use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like http_form_submit or web_crawl. The user must infer from the generic nature of the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation with statuses, which is helpful, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or any potential side effects. For a simple list tool this is minimally sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It includes relevant detail (statuses) without any waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states exactly what the tool lists and the categories included, which is sufficient for a user to understand the basic behavior and expected result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed given the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'all programs' and specifies the scope via statuses in parentheses. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scope_list' which likely deals with scope targets rather than programs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'program_scope_status' or 'engagement_list'. The description only states what the tool does but does not mention any exclusions or competing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameter meanings, without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, potential resource usage, error handling, or output format. The 'arbitrary' nature of the query could imply risk, but this is not addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single action statement followed by a clear parameter list with examples. Every line adds value, and the format is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the parameters well but lacks context about output structure, performance implications, or failure modes. Since there's no output schema, the agent is left without information on what the tool returns, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description thoroughly explains each parameter beyond the schema (which only has titles/types). It provides field names, examples for display_filter and fields, and clarifies max_lines default. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Run an arbitrary tshark query on a PCAP file.' It uses a specific verb (run) and resource (PCAP file), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcap_protocols or pcap_extract by emphasizing 'arbitrary' tshark query capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (custom tshark queries) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or exclude cases. Examples of filters and fields help infer appropriate usage, but there's no direct comparison with sibling tools or mention of 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the dependency/fallback behavior ('Uses ncat (nmap-suite) if available, falls back to netcat') and the 'Returns immediately' trait. However, it does not mention that the tool makes network connections to the target, how it handles timeouts, or what a typical result looks like, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then implementation details, then parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 string params, no output schema), but the description omits the return format or result details. It only states 'Returns immediately' without clarifying whether the output is open/closed status per port, a list, or a boolean. Given no output schema, the description should cover this to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: 'host: IP or hostname' and 'ports: comma/space-separated ports e.g. '80', '22,80,443'' provide clear format and examples for both parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Check if ports are open/closed on a host.' This specifies the verb (check) and resource (ports on a host), and distinguishes it from sibling port scanning tools by mentioning ncat/netcat and 'Returns immediately,' implying a lightweight connectivity check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a quick port check via 'Returns immediately' and the ncat/netcat implementation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nmap_port_scan or fast_port_scan. No exclusions or comparative conditions are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral effects. It states 'Start or update' but does not disclose whether starting a scope with an existing name overwrites/merges data, whether approval workflow is triggered, or what side effects (e.g., changes to active engagements) may occur. This lack of detail is a notable gap for a tool that creates/modifies program scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a clear list of parameters, each with an explanation and example. While slightly lengthy, every line adds value for parameter understanding. The opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, though the parameter details could be considered repetitious if the schema were richer.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with six parameters and no annotations, the description adequately explains input semantics but omits important contextual information: no mention of return values, side effects, approval requirements, or differences from sibling tools. This makes it minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent to safely and effectively use the tool in all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with concrete examples (e.g., 'in_scope: list of allowed targets e.g. ["10.10.10.0/24", "example.com"]'). All six parameters are meaningfully described, making the tool easier to invoke correctly without schema hints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Start or update a named program scope,' using a specific verb and explicit resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like program_scope_list or program_scope_end by focusing on creation/update rather than viewing or terminating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (starting or updating a named program scope) and provides context through parameter definitions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when to use program_scope_add_targets instead of this scope-creation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions API key requirements for some sources and explains default behavior for DNS resolution, but it does not disclose potential rate limits, external network requests, or output format beyond the listed data types. It adds moderate value but lacks deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured with line breaks per parameter. Each sentence adds value: purpose, source options, API key caveat, and parameter meanings. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all input semantics and necessary usage caveats. It lacks an explicit description of the return value structure, but that's not required for invocation. Given the moderate complexity, it is nearly complete for the agent to select and call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the tool description fully compensates. It explains domain as 'target domain or company name', source as 'comma-separated data sources' with a full list and default, limit as 'max search results' with default, and dns_resolve as 'perform DNS resolution on discovered subdomains'. Every parameter is meaningfully described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'OSINT gathering using theHarvester (emails, subdomains, IPs, URLs)' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the data types collected, which helps distinguish it from subdomain-only tools like subfinder_enumerate or amass_enum, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear guidance on source selection ('Defaults to sources that work without API keys', 'Use all only if you have API keys configured') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools like subfinder or amass. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions detection modes, throttling, random user agents, and TLS checks, which provide useful operational context. However, it does not disclose potential disruptive effects, authorization requirements, or how results are returned (e.g., synchronous vs. asynchronous), leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is formatted as a structured bullet list, making parameters easy to scan. Each line is purposeful and compact, though the enumerate explanation is slightly verbose. Overall, it earns its place without excessive fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description thoroughly covers parameters but omits key operational details like output format, whether the scan is synchronous or asynchronous, and how to interpret results. Given the lack of an output schema and the complexity of a scanner, these missing pieces prevent full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero property descriptions, but the tool description explains every parameter: url, enumerate with value breakdown, api_token, detection_mode, random_user_agent, disable_tls_checks, and throttle_ms. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions and adds practical guidance such as the API token source and enumerate value meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly identifies the tool as a 'WordPress vulnerability scanner using WPScan', which is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes it from generic scanners like nmap_vuln_scan or nikto_scan. The name and description align perfectly, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case (scanning WordPress sites) is clearly implied by the purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. It does not reference sibling tools or state 'use when the target is WordPress'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It states the tool analyzes and prioritizes, returns a structured report, and identifies specific categories, providing some insight into behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how 'recent scans' is defined, or any edge-case handling, which are meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a scannable parameter list. The final 'Returns' line partially repeats the earlier output mention but adds concrete output types, and the overall structure is efficient with no wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, and the description covers all inputs and gives a high-level view of outputs. It does not define 'recent scans' or the exact report schema, but given the tool's moderate complexity and the richness of the parameter explanations, it is reasonably complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter in plain language, including values (e.g., min_severity: low/medium/high/critical) and defaults (e.g., max_items default 20), fully compensating for the bare schema. This is exactly what the description should do when the schema lacks descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Analyze and prioritize all findings from recent scans,' which is a specific verb+resource. It then enumerates distinct outputs (attack paths, quick wins, critical issues, credential reuse opportunities) and positions the tool as returning a 'structured triage report,' clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_findings or analyze_attack_chains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a prioritized triage report for recent findings is needed, and the parameter explanations clarify how to filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as get_findings or analyze_attack_chains, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the read-only nature implicitly through 'report what changed' and clarifies the baseline/later ordering of run IDs. However, it doesn't explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention any potential side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the specific diff categories, and parameter definitions. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary details, making it quick to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states inputs, their meaning, and the nature of the output. It doesn't describe the exact response format, but that is less critical given the clear reporting categories and tool simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'prev_run_id: the earlier (baseline) run id' and 'curr_run_id: the later run id'. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare integer type in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Compare... and report') and resource ('two scan runs'). It lists concrete output categories (new/disappeared/changed hosts, services, vulnerabilities), which distinguishes it from siblings like asset_latest_changes or asset_list_runs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case is implied by the purpose ('Compare two scan runs'), but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or direct sibling references. It's clear context but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that it runs enum4linux with -a and enumerates specific information, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network traffic, time to complete, or that it may be considered intrusive). Since there are no annotations to rely on, the description adds some context but leaves out important behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and well-structured: first sentence states the tool and the '-a' flag, second lists what is enumerated, then three lines map parameters to their meanings. No filler or redundancy exists; every line earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a broad enumeration tool) with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, scope of enumeration, and parameter meanings. It does not mention return values or output format, but this is somewhat implied for a scan tool. It lacks notes on runtime or prerequisites, but is adequate for a straightforward enumeration tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully describes all three parameters: target as IP address, username as optional for authenticated scan, and password as optional for authenticated scan. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare property names and defaults, though it doesn't detail formats or edge cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific verb 'enumeration' and resource 'SMB/NetBIOS' using enum4linux, and explicitly lists the categories enumerated (users, shares, groups, password policy, OS info, printers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like smbclient_list_shares, which only covers shares.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when comprehensive SMB/NetBIOS enumeration is needed ('Full... -a covers all'), and the enumeration list gives context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like smbclient_list_shares for share-only enumeration. No exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It does disclose key behaviors like 'userlist overrides username', 'tasks: parallel connections per target', and 'stop_on_first: stop after first valid credential found', providing some operational context. However, it omits side effects like output format, credential storage, or potential account lockouts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a lean, front-loaded one-liner followed by a well-organized parameter list. Each parameter gets a concise, informative line. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The parameter documentation is complete for invocation, but the description lacks information about output or return values (no output schema exists). It also doesn't mention service-specific nuances or integration with credential storage. Given the tool's complexity, this is a noticeable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter with examples and overrides. For instance, it clarifies that userlist overrides username and passlist overrides password, and gives example file paths. This goes well beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Password brute-force attack using Hydra' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like ssh_exec or msf_run_module by naming the Hydra tool and its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through the purpose (brute-force credentials) but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The parameter list gives operational guidance but not strategic context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists completed jobs and optionally filters, but does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'list'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the parameter explanation is concise. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers purpose and parameter. However, with no output schema or annotations, the absence of return value details leaves a gap for agents that need to use the results with other job tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fully explains the tool_filter parameter with examples ('nmap', 'nikto', '' for all), compensating for the zero schema coverage. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema field.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists completed jobs and optionally filters by tool name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_jobs (which likely lists all jobs) and get_job_status by focusing on completed jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving completed jobs but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_jobs or other job-related tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation idempotentHint is already provided, so the description does not need to repeat it. It adds value by listing valid target formats (IP, CIDR, domain, wildcard), which gives context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., whether duplicates are ignored, if the target is validated), but for a simple add operation this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second provides parameter format examples. There is no redundant text, and the information is front-loaded and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both purpose and parameter format. The idempotency behavior is already disclosed via annotations. It doesn't explain return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. The description is complete enough given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero description coverage for the 'target' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining acceptable formats and giving a CIDR example. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it lacks exhaustive validation rules. Given the single-parameter simplicity, this is strong compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Add' with the resource 'authorized scope', clearly stating the action. It also specifies 'a single target', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scope_set, scope_clear, and scope_remove. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for adding one target at a time but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives such as scope_set for bulk replacement or scope_remove for removal. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it only meets the 'implied usage' criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') but does not mention error handling when the exploit is not found, dependencies like a local Exploit-DB installation, or any network/offline behavior. This is a simple lookup, but some gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and one explaining the parameter. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information, earning a high score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. However, it does not describe the return value format or potential failure cases, which would be helpful for an agent to know when invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only a field name and type, while the description adds that edb_id is an Exploit-DB ID number and gives an example ('39446'). This meaningfully supplements the schema, though it does not detail format constraints or accepted ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full filesystem path for an exploit based on its EDB-ID. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the function is distinct from siblings like searchsploit_search, which focuses on searching exploits rather than retrieving paths.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: if you have an EDB-ID and need the filesystem path, this tool is appropriate. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose ordering ('newest first') and filtering behavior for the 'program' parameter. However, it does not describe the return format, whether it is read-only, or any other side effects. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one purpose sentence plus two parameter explanations. It front-loads the main action and provides necessary parameter details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details about what fields are returned per run, which would be helpful for an agent deciding whether to use this tool vs alternatives. The absence of any return value description is a notable gap, especially with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'program' (filter by program name, empty = all) and 'limit' (max results). This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type/default information. The 'limit' explanation is minimal but sufficient; the 'program' explanation clarifies the empty default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List recorded scan runs (recon cycles), newest first.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recorded scan runs'), and adds ordering detail ('newest first'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_diff_runs or asset_latest_changes, which focus on comparing or showing changes rather than simple listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve scan runs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the straightforward listing purpose is evident. Since no output schema or further guidance is given, a perfect score is not warranted, but the clarity of the context earns a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details important constraints such as 'save_to' being restricted to specific directories and the meaning of 'confirmed_only' as filtering to confirmed findings. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting), return value (content vs. saved file path), or preconditions like requiring existing findings, leaving some gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise purpose statement followed by a bulleted parameter list. Each sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan. The length is appropriate for a tool with seven parameters, and it front-loads the core purpose before detailing parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all parameters and provides usage context for 'confirmed_only'. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., report content or saved file path), which would be useful for agent decision-making, but overall it is fairly complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter in plain language. It clarifies semantics like 'min_severity' values, 'host' filter behavior, 'format' options with 'html' suitability for client delivery, and 'confirmed_only' as a filter tied to 'update_finding_status'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's simple name/type/default declarations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate a professional finding-based pentest report with attack chains and remediation.' This uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('pentest report') with distinct features (findings, attack chains, remediation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_report' by focusing specifically on pentest reporting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implicit context on when to use the tool, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. It does offer usage guidance for the 'confirmed_only' parameter, stating to use it after running a validation agent for a zero-false-positive report. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus, say, 'generate_report' or how to configure it for typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the return behavior ('best credential to try (decrypted), or empty if none found') and the 'most recently discovered' selection. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., creds must already be stored), potential side effects, or whether it is a read-only operation beyond the 'get' verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence earns its place. The description is compact, front-loaded with purpose, and includes usage guidance, parameter semantics, and return behavior in just a few lines. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter meanings, and return value. It could be enhanced by noting that the tool only works if credentials were previously discovered/stored, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: 'host: target host' and 'service: optional service filter e.g. 'ssh'' add meaning beyond the raw schemas. The example for 'service' is helpful, though it could specify accepted formats for 'host'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the most recently discovered credential for a host/service.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like creds_list, creds_store, and creds_delete by focusing on retrieval for a specific host/service. The scope is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before attacking a service to check if we already have valid creds.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools. The parameter explanations add practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does disclose auto-parsing of banners, filtering by os_type, and the return composition, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention prerequisites like internet access or local exploit-db, so some transparency gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently covers parameters and returns. It uses some run-on phrasing but every sentence serves a purpose, so it is concise overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs, behavior, and outputs adequately. It includes parameter examples and return types, but lacks edge-case handling or explicit usage examples, which keeps it from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining each parameter with examples, explaining banner as an auto-parsed alternative, and describing os_type filtering. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds matching exploits in searchsploit and Metasploit for a given service/version, and explains its value proposition ('Closes the gap...'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like searchsploit_search and msf_search, which each focus on one source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use it (after identifying a service/version) and what it accomplishes. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., 'use this instead of searchsploit_search'), but the use case is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only listing operation ('List') and explicitly states the return fields (filename, size, modification time). It does not mention potential error cases or sorting behavior, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise, consisting of two clear sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second details the expected output. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the directory scope, and the return payload. It could mention edge cases such as empty directory or access errors, but the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and understand the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful information about the return format, which compensates for the lack of parameters and provides additional context beyond the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('artifacts directory'), and further clarifies the scope with examples (downloads, scan outputs, payloads). This makes it easily distinguishable from other listing tools like asset_list_runs or list_jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use this tool (to list files in the artifacts directory), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided, which is adequate but not outstanding.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 that the tool is non-interactive and returns immediately, which is useful for agent expectations regarding job creation or waiting. However, it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects. For a search operation this is adequate but minimal, lacking richer behavioral context such as whether it accesses a local database or network.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word is functional: it states the action, the resource, the mechanism (resource file), a performance benefit, query examples, and the non-interactive behavior. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive enough: it explains what it does, how it works, query format, and the fact that it is non-interactive. The only missing piece is what the return value looks like (e.g., module names, paths), but this is not critical for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one required 'query' string with 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify its meaning. It does so with examples ('ms17-010', 'eternalblue', 'type:exploit platform:windows') that illustrate both simple and advanced queries. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not fully explain the query syntax or return behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches Metasploit modules by keyword, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Metasploit modules'). It also gives concrete query examples, and the phrase 'using a resource file (faster than -x)' distinguishes it from direct msf console usage. Among siblings, it clearly differs from msf_run_module (which runs modules) and searchsploit_search (which searches Exploit-DB).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for quick, non-interactive searches by mentioning 'faster than -x' and 'Returns immediately'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Since the sibling list includes searchsploit_search and msf_run_module, a more explicit 'when to use vs. those' would have been stronger, but the provided context is clear enough for the intended purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the use of -sn and that it is a ping scan, which is helpful, but does not mention potential limitations such as ICMP blocking, whether it uses TCP/SYN pings, or the exact output structure. This is basic but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two lines, front-loaded with the core purpose and then parameter details. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, it covers the essential purpose and target format. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return value or what a successful result looks like. It also omits operational caveats (e.g., firewall interference), which is a notable gap for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'targets' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining acceptable formats: 'IPs, ranges, or CIDR' with concrete examples. This gives the AI agent all necessary information to construct valid requests.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a ping scan (-sn) to discover live hosts, and explicitly notes 'no port scan,' which distinguishes it from the sibling nmap_port_scan tool. The purpose is specific, action-oriented, and avoids ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fast host discovery by highlighting speed and the absence of port scanning. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., nmap_port_scan), but the 'no port scan' phrasing effectively communicates when not to use this tool. The target format examples provide practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the return format (protocol breakdown by packet count and endpoint conversations) and the input file type, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or how it handles missing/malformed files. It does not contradict anything.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: three sentences plus a parameter definition and return summary. Each line adds value, no filler, and the structure is scannable with the 'Returns:' label.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one param and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage order, and return value. It does not mention potential errors, performance caveats, or explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, but the overall context is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema for pcap_path has no description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by specifying 'path to .pcap or .pcapng file', adding file format meaning that is not present in the schema. This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get protocol hierarchy and conversation list for a PCAP' with a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the purpose as providing an overview of the capture's contents and distinguishes itself from pcap_extract by positioning this as a preliminary step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this BEFORE pcap_extract to know what protocols to look for,' giving clear sequential guidance and naming a relevant alternative. However, it does not mention other siblings like tshark_query, so exclusion criteria are not fully comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns matching exploits and service versions, which clarifies it is a lookup/search rather than an actual exploitation tool. However, it does not mention potential duration, impact of scanning, or that it does not execute exploits—additional context would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the core idea, and uses a clear chain notation. Three sentences cover purpose, parameters, and return value without wasted words. Structure is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a chained tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meanings, and return structure. It lacks notes on runtime expectations or safety considerations, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and select it appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying 'target: IP or hostname' and 'ports: port range to scan'. This goes beyond the bare schema property names and clarifies expected input formats. It could be even more detailed (e.g., port syntax), but it adequately compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a full chain (port scan → service detection → CVE lookup) and returns exploits for each service. This distinguishes it from individual sibling tools like nmap_port_scan or searchsploit_search by emphasizing the combined action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It conveys the use case: get all exploits for all services in one call. It implies a holistic alternative to running separate scan steps, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific steps. The context is clear, but exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return value ('change report + a new_assets list flagged as high-priority') and the parameter semantics (empty = all runs). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (though likely read-only), pagination, or error conditions. It adds some useful behavioral context but is not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds parameter and return semantics in clear labeled sections. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return value adequately. It remains slightly vague about the exact structure of the 'change report,' but this is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature and the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the single 'program' parameter: 'focus on one program (empty = all runs across programs). This provides complete meaning beyond the bare schema definition, including default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Show what changed') and the resource ('between the two most recent completed runs'). It positions itself as the 'core continuous-recon view,' effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like asset_diff_runs or asset_list_runs. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context for when to use this tool ('core continuous-recon view: what's new since last time?'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, such as when a diff between arbitrary runs is needed (asset_diff_runs). The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation marks the tool as destructive, and the description adds that it 'kills its process group', indicating a forceful termination beyond a graceful cancel. This adds behavioral context not present in the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one simple parameter, the description fully covers the action and its effect (killing the process group). No output schema is needed for a cancel operation, and the destructive nature is already annotated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With one job_id parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description's phrase 'running job' implies that the job must be active, adding a semantic constraint. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description reinforces its meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Cancel' with a clear resource 'running job', and adds the detail of killing its process group. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_job_status or list_jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is for stopping active jobs, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No prerequisites or contrast with sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states that credentials are returned with decrypted passwords/hashes, which is a critical behavioral trait for a security tool. It also explains the empty-filter behavior, adding transparency beyond what annotations would provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose and then concisely explaining parameters. There is no redundant phrasing, and every clause adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, filter semantics, and return content (decrypted passwords/hashes). It does not detail output format or pagination, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the existing sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides property names and types, but the description gives full meaning for each parameter: host is a filter by IP/hostname with empty meaning 'all', and service is a filter by type (e.g., 'ssh', 'http') with empty meaning 'all'. This exceeds the schema's information and substantially aids correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'List stored credentials', which is a clear verb+resource construction. It also specifies the optional filters (host, service), distinguishing it from sibling tools like creds_use and creds_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for use in further attacks' implies this tool is for retrieving credentials to reuse, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools (creds_store, creds_use) are not mentioned, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing significant traits: auto-selecting common.txt when wordlist is empty, automatically switching to POST when 'data' is set, and using auto-calibrate to filter noise. These go beyond a generic 'fuzzer' label and give the agent concrete expectations about runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact summary followed by a clear parameter list. Each line addresses one parameter in a consistent 'name: explanation' format. No filler or redundant text—every sentence earns its place. It's well-structured and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers invocation thoroughly, including all parameters and key behavioral nuances. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., fuzzing matches, output format, job ID) since there is no output schema. For a complex tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a minor gap but not a critical one because the primary purpose is clearly invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does, by explaining all 10 parameters with meaningful context beyond their names and defaults: e.g., 'url: target URL with FUZZ keyword', 'wordlist: auto-selects common.txt if empty', 'data: setting this switches to POST automatically'. This is exemplary for a zero-coverage schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Fast web fuzzer using ffuf', which clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('fuzz') and resource ('web'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gobuster_dir by emphasizing the FUZZ keyword placement, a hallmark of ffuf. The context makes it obvious this is for web content fuzzing, not host discovery or port scanning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how to use the tool ('Place FUZZ keyword in URL, headers, or POST data') and covers key options like auto-calibrate and POST switching. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., gobuster_dir, http_request) or state when NOT to use it. Usage context is implicit but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses form-submission behavior, redirect handling, and return values, but does not cover error handling, timeouts, or side effects. It provides basic transparency but lacks deeper behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a clean bullet-like parameter list and a return-value line. It is appropriately sized for six parameters, though slightly longer than the leanest examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description's return-value line ('status, headers, body, redirect chain') is essential and provided. All parameters are documented, the purpose is clear, and the tool can be confidently invoked based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter: url, form_data (with example), method, headers, cookies, and follow_redirects. This fully adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Submit an HTML form (simulates browser form POST)', which clearly states the tool's action and target. This distinguishes it from the sibling generic http_request tool, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via 'simulates browser form POST' and lists method options, but it does not explicitly contrast with http_request or mention when not to use the tool. The context is clear enough for most cases, but excludes no alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals ordering by severity and the meaning of the host filter default, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe return format or pagination. Basic transparency is present but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The two sentences plus parameter documentation contain no redundant words and every line provides useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple filtered list tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the core purpose, intended workflow, ordering, parameter meanings, and next step. It does not describe the exact return structure, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'host' with 'empty = all' and 'min_severity' with the allowed values info/low/medium/high/critical. This adds concrete, actionable semantics beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' targeting 'findings pending validation' for the 'current engagement', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_findings or engagement_findings. It also notes ordering by severity and the intended next action (update_finding_status), reinforcing its specific role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the intended workflow: a validation agent processes unconfirmed findings one by one and calls update_finding_status. This gives strong context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or name alternative list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does mention the save location (~/kali-mcp/artifacts/) and file permission (chmod 600), but it does not describe what happens on success or failure, whether existing files are overwritten, or any prerequisite like msfvenom being installed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a one-line action summary followed by a clearly formatted parameter list. Every line adds meaningful information without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core behavior and all parameters well. However, it omits the return value or how the agent will know the artifact path/status, which is important contextual information for a file-generating tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: payload with an example, lhost/lport meanings, allowed format values, and filename behavior when left empty. This is essential semantic information not present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool generates a payload using msfvenom, with a specific resource (payload artifact). The verb 'Generate' and destination path distinguish it from sibling tools like msf_run_module or msf_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the use case clear: create an msfvenom payload file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context and parameter list are unambiguous, and no conflicting alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only), error conditions, or prerequisites beyond 'completed job'. This is adequate but not rich; a 3 is appropriate for a non-mutating parser.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first states purpose and outputs, the second explains the parameter. Every word adds value without unnecessary filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, input, and return content sufficiently. It does not describe error cases or detailed edge behavior, but given the straightforward nature of parsing nmap output from a completed job, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines job_id as a required string with 0% description coverage. The description adds critical meaning: 'job_id: completed nmap job ID', which tells the agent what value to supply. Since this is the only parameter, the description fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action ('Parse nmap output from a completed job into structured data') and resource ('nmap output'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling nmap scan tools and parse_nuclei_output. It also lists the outputs (hosts, open ports, services, OS guesses), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from a completed job' explicitly sets the usage context: this tool is for post-processing after an nmap job finishes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among many scanning and parsing siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral transparency. It discloses the file source and the act of parsing, but it omits details about side effects, error handling, or the exact structure of the output. Since this is a read-only parsing operation, the omission is not critical, but more specifics on the return format would have improved transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two focused sentences: one for the purpose and one for the parameter. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the tool name. It is appropriately front-loaded and minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter parser without an output schema, the description covers the input and its origin well. It could be improved by describing the output structure or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the clarity of the pipeline context, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema offers no description (0% coverage), yet the description fully compensates with a precise sentence: 'findings_file: path returned by nuclei_scan as findings_file.' This explains exactly what the parameter is, its type, and where to obtain it, leaving no ambiguity for the sole parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Parse' and specifies the resource 'nuclei JSONL findings file' and the outcome 'structured vulnerability data'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nuclei_scan by focusing on parsing, and mentions the specific format, making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clarity by stating the findings_file is the path returned by nuclei_scan, directly tying this tool to the post-scan workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternatives (e.g., parse_nmap_output) or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses parallelism, waiting for all tools, and returning consolidated results with findings and next steps. However, it does not mention whether background jobs are created, resource usage/limits, or whether results are persisted, which are notable gaps for a scan orchestration tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes useful information: parallel behavior, performance benefit, parameter meanings, and return shape. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or obvious fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core usage (target and intensity), the execution model (parallel), and the return value (consolidated results with findings and next steps), which is adequate for a high-level scan tool. However, given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more detail about which tools are invoked and whether jobs are created would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the JSON schema provides only bare parameter names with no descriptions, the tool description compensates fully by defining 'target' as 'IP or hostname' and listing 'intensity' values with meanings: 'light' (quick scan), 'normal' (default), and 'deep' (thorough). This exceeds the schema's information and gives clear guidance for both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Full parallel host scan — fires multiple tools simultaneously and waits for all,' which clearly specifies the verb, resource, and parallel/comprehensive nature. This distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like nmap_port_scan or asset_search. The mention of target and consolidated results further solidifies the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The statement 'Reduces total recon time by 70% vs running tools sequentially' provides clear context for when to use this orchestration tool over executing individual recon tools one by one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the efficiency framing is a useful usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions using gowitness and that it saves a PNG file, but does not disclose network request side effects or whether it modifies the target system. Adequate but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: it leads with the action, explains typical use, then defines each parameter and the return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, the parameters, and the return format. The distinction from screenshot_urls is clear, and no additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides zero description coverage, but the tool description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'url' is defined with an example, and 'timeout' is specified as per-request seconds. This compensates well for the schema's minimal information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Take a screenshot') and its resource ('a single web URL'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool screenshot_urls by emphasizing 'single', and gives concrete use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: 'Useful for quick visual triage of login panels, admin interfaces, etc.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output (directory + JSONL) and implies read-only screenshotting, but provides no detail on file location, resource impact, or potential side effects. Basic but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: action, usage context, parameter semantics, and return format. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, parameter details, and return value. It omits edge-case behavior but is otherwise complete for a straightforward task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds clear meaning to each parameter: urls as the list to screenshot, threads as concurrent workers, and timeout as per-request seconds. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Take screenshots of multiple URLs using gowitness.' It specifies the resource (URLs) and differentiates from the sibling tool 'screenshot_url' by emphasizing batch processing of multiple URLs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs 'Use after gobuster/crawl to visually triage all discovered endpoints at once,' providing a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the local, immediate nature of the search and parameter-specific overrides (e.g., 'cve overrides query'), but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or return format. Since it's a search operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a single opening sentence followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description thoroughly explains all parameters, but it does not describe the return value structure beyond 'returns results'. For an agent to use the output, it would benefit from knowing what fields are returned (e.g., paths, titles, EDIDs), which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial meaning beyond the empty schema descriptions, explaining each parameter: query semantics, exact matching, title_only scope, CVE override behavior, and exclude pattern. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('Exploit-DB local database'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools such as searchsploit_get_path. It also enumerates parameter behaviors, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by noting this is a local DB search that returns immediately, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like cve_to_exploit or searchsploit_get_path. It provides context without exclusions or direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes 'Always runs non-interactively (--batch)' and warns that higher risk levels 'may alter data,' adding context beyond the schema. It also explains that higher levels mean more tests and slower execution. However, it does not describe output format or potential side effects like database modification during exploitation, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a compact parameter list with explanations, and a final note about non-interactive execution. Every line adds value; there is no fluff or repetition. The list format makes it scannable despite having 13 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers all parameters, provides usage examples, and discloses key operational behavior like batch mode and potential data alteration. The only gap is the lack of information about return values or how results are accessed, which is partly mitigated by the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with examples, ranges, and sqlmap flags. For instance, 'technique: SQL injection techniques — B=Boolean, E=Error, U=Union, S=Stacked, T=Time, Q=Inline' and 'risk: risk level 1-3 (higher = more aggressive, may alter data)' add substantial meaning beyond the raw schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Automated SQL injection detection and exploitation using sqlmap,' which clearly states the tool's specific verb ('detection and exploitation'), resource ('SQL injection'), and underlying engine ('sqlmap'). This distinguishes it from sibling scanning tools like nmap or nikto, which target different vulnerability classes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for SQL injection testing via the first line, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it, such as when a non-invasive scan is required, though the 'may alter data' caveat hints at risk.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact checks performed, the input parameters, and return behavior (structured findings or error on SSH failure). It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies remote state), but the enumeration context implies read-only operations. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact yet complete. It front-loads the purpose, then details the checks, lists parameters, and states the return behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential aspects: what it does, which checks it runs, all parameters, and return format. It lacks some context like prerequisites (e.g., valid SSH credentials, permissions) and timeouts, but given the moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explicitly explains each parameter: host, username, password, key_file, and port. This fully compensates for the schema gap, providing clear meaning for all five parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Enumerate') and resource ('privilege escalation vectors on a Linux host via SSH'). It lists concrete check categories, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_exec (which runs arbitrary commands) and nmap scans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the description: you need SSH credentials to a Linux host. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ssh_exec for command execution, or local enumeration) or provide exclusions. No sibling alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that it uses paramiko and does not require sshpass, informs the user of return values (stdout, stderr, return_code), and mentions error handling for connection/auth failures. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema provides, though it does not cover host key verification or what happens if both password and key_file are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: one lead sentence defining the tool, followed by a list of parameters with brief explanations, and a final line for return values. Every line earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 params), lack of output schema, and absence of annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, all parameters with defaults, and expected return values. It does not explain the absence of interactive features or potential security implications of running arbitrary commands, but these are largely implicit. It is nearly complete for its scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 7 parameters with meaningful context: 'password: SSH password (leave empty if using key)' and 'key_file: path to private key file (leave empty if using password)' clarify mutual exclusivity, while defaults for port and timeout are restated. This exceeds what the schema titles provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Execute a single command via SSH', a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_enum_privesc (which enumerates privilege escalation) and hydra_bruteforce (which brute-forces credentials). The qualifier 'single command' also differentiates it from any interactive SSH session tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use it: to execute a single command via SSH. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'for interactive sessions use X' or 'if you need to enumerate privileges, use ssh_enum_privesc'). The context is clear but without comparative guidance, it earns a middle score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it follows links organically and that external links are collected but not crawled, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects like active requests to target systems, rate limits, or scope restrictions, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a two-sentence purpose statement followed by a bullet-like parameter list and a return summary. Every line adds value, and the front-loading of the main purpose ensures quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It lacks edge-case details like robots.txt handling or resource limits, but given the complexity of a crawl tool, this is a minor gap and overall it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear inline explanations for all 5 parameters (url, max_depth, max_pages, include_external, timeout), including defaults and meaning. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds significant value beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Crawl') and resource ('web application'), and distinguishes it from wordlist brute-force by emphasizing organic link-following and discovery of endpoints, forms, and interesting paths. This differentiates it from sibling tools like gobuster_dir and ffuf_fuzz.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool by contrasting it with wordlist brute-force ('misses'), suggesting use for organic discovery. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so the guidance is somewhat implicit rather than fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: non-interactive execution, session auto-kill, and the requirement for RHOSTS. This goes beyond the schema, though it could further explain output format or side effects on the target.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary verb. Parameter details are organized in bullet-like lines, and examples add clarity without bloat. Every sentence contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity and absence of an output schema, the description should mention what the tool returns (e.g., job ID, status) and whether it creates a background job. Sibling tools like get_job_status and get_job_output suggest integration, but no linkage is provided. This gap prevents full self-sufficiency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 0% coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with examples. It clarifies module path formats, the structure of options dict, and the payload usage, making the tool usable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific action: 'Run a Metasploit module non-interactively via resource file.' It clearly identifies the resource (Metasploit module) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like msf_search or msfvenom_generate by focusing on execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is non-interactive, requires RHOSTS, and auto-kills sessions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the usage is well-scoped for an agent looking to execute a module once.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it sends a newline or custom data and waits for a response, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention error handling or what happens if no response is received, a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the primary purpose, explains the mechanism in one sentence, and then lists parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is fairly simple, and the description covers its purpose and parameters well. However, with no output schema, it does not state what the return value looks like (e.g., the banner text or an error on timeout). This is a notable gap for a network tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains each parameter: host, port, timeout, and send_data, including escape sequences. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool grabs a service banner from host:port, using a raw async socket. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nc_port_check, which only checks port availability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies its use for banner grabbing after a port is known to be open, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, though no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses auto-detection of file types via magic bytes, supports multiple output formats (text/hex/base64), and says it returns file metadata. These details go beyond the schema. It does not cover error cases or permission nuances, but for a read operation this is reasonable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loads the primary action, and includes a brief parameter list and return summary. A more structured layout could improve readability, but every sentence adds useful information without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by specifying what is returned (metadata, type detection, content). It covers all parameters and core behavior, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Minor omissions like error handling do not detract significantly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so for all five params: path, max_bytes (with default 50KB), offset, as_hex, and as_base64, adding clear meaning about their purpose beyond the bare schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read a file from disk' with a specific resource type and location scope (artifacts, /tmp, /var/tmp, wordlists). It also mentions auto-detection via magic bytes, distinguishing it from other file-related tools like check_binary or list_artifacts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it by listing common directories (artifacts, /tmp, /var/tmp, wordlists) and mentions file type auto-detection. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the context is sufficient given the unique role of reading file content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 passive-only nature, the specific tools used (subfinder, amass -passive, theHarvester), that it records under a scan run, change detection behavior, tracking of disappeared assets, and the priority_new_assets output. It also notes required scope for the domain. While it omits details like async behavior or run cancellation, the key behavioral traits are well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a functional paragraph, a safety/rationale sentence, and a parameter list. Each sentence adds value and the key points are front-loaded. It is slightly longer than absolutely necessary, but there is no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does by listing the categories of changes (new subdomains, IPs/ports, endpoints, vulnerabilities, disappeared assets, priority_new_assets). Combined with parameter details and usage context, it gives a near-complete picture. Minor omissions include exact output format and status details, but these are not critical for tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed semantics for all 4 parameters: domain (must be in active program scope), program (defaults to domain), tools (subset with default all), and tool_budget (max count, 0=no limit). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds meaning beyond the type system.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Passive recon sweep with change detection.' It enumerates concrete outputs (new subdomains, new IPs/ports, new endpoints, new vulnerabilities, disappeared assets) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subfinder_enumerate and asset_diff_runs by combining enumeration with change detection across runs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: repeatedly/unattended for passive recon and change monitoring, stating 'Safe to run repeatedly/unattended (passive only).' It explains the rationale for priority_new_assets and mentions the scope constraint. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or contrast with individual enumeration tools, so it is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the analytical nature (correlate findings), provides an illustrative example, and details the output structure. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention dependencies on an active engagement, but the phrasing implies a non-mutating analysis.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, an illustrative example, a usage note, and a parameter list. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or unnecessary length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, input parameters, and return values (list of chains with name, escalated severity, narrative, steps, affected hosts). It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active engagement or pre-existing findings), but these are reasonably implied by the context. Given the moderate complexity, it is near-complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, allowed values (info/low/medium/high/critical for min_severity, low/medium/high for min_confidence), and the special behavior of an empty host. This far exceeds the schema's minimal titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Correlate current findings into multi-stage attack chains.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing compound risk and combining low/medium findings into high-impact paths, which is not duplicated in other tool descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'Call this at any point during an engagement to understand compound risk,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for single-finding analysis, so it lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: automatically setting scope for all tools, tagging all subsequent findings/jobs/credentials to this engagement. It also includes example values for name and scope. It could further clarify side effects like whether a previous engagement context is replaced, but the provided information is meaningful and goes beyond a simple restatement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured. It leads with a purpose statement, then explains the key behavioral consequence, and finishes with a clear parameter list. Every line adds essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, behavioral effects, and parameter semantics. It could mention what the tool returns or whether it requires a prior setup, but the examples and tags provide sufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description compensates for 0% schema coverage by documenting all four parameters with names, meanings, and examples (e.g., name: 'ClientName-WebApp-2026', scope: ['192.168.1.0/24', 'example.com']). This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('engagement'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling engagement tools like engagement_status, engagement_end, and engagement_list. It also explains the critical side effects: 'Sets scope for all tools automatically' and tags all subsequent findings, jobs, and credentials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates this is the entry point for engagement work ('Start a new engagement', 'Sets scope for all tools automatically'). It provides context for when to use it, but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use scope_add for incremental scope changes) or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses several behavioral details: it returns a list of normalized Finding objects with specified fields, 'leave empty to get all recent findings,' and filters by severity/confidence. It doesn't cover potential error conditions or ordering, but for a read-only retrieval tool, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by parameter definitions, then return type. Each sentence adds value, and no information is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides all essential information for a simple retrieval tool: purpose, all parameters, and return structure. It could mention explicit alternative usage (e.g., for raw output) or pagination, but given the schema and no annotations, this is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully documents each parameter, including allowed values for min_severity and min_confidence and the 'leave empty' behavior for job_id. This compensates completely for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Extract and return normalized findings from a completed job,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It differentiates from siblings like get_job_output (raw output) by emphasizing 'normalized' and 'completed job.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly indicates the tool is for extracting findings from a completed job, and explains parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as get_job_output for raw output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation already signals potential damage, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying the concrete effect: all restrictions are cleared and all targets become allowed. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and effect, the second provides usage timing. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully covers purpose, effect, and usage context. There are no gaps that would hinder correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adequately describes the unconditional action.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: clearing all scope restrictions and reverting to lab mode. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scope_add, scope_remove, and scope_set, which modify scope in specific ways.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit timing guidance ('Use at end of engagement'), which helps the agent know when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a reset action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the special semantic of an empty list: 'Empty list means lab mode — all targets allowed.' This adds behavioral context that is not deducible from the schema or annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: two short sentences that immediately state the purpose and the empty-list behavior. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what an empty result means, and is accompanied by a readOnlyHint annotation. No output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret its result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information needed. It appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior and output interpretation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List all authorized targets in scope.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (authorized targets in scope), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scope_add, scope_remove, and scope_clear which mutate scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list in-scope targets. It also explains the meaning of an empty list (lab mode, all targets allowed), which is valuable guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as program_scope_list, which serves a similar purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 what gets verified (tool binaries, Python deps, wordlists) and what the return payload includes (status per category, missing tools with install hints, available wordlists), implicitly framing the tool as a safe, non-destructive preflight read. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only/auth behavior but covers the operation well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage timing, and return format. Information is front-loaded with the core 'Preflight check' framing, and the 'Returns:' line is efficiently structured with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 0-param tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the essentials: what it verifies, when to run it, and exactly what it returns (status per category, missing tools with install hints, available wordlists). No material gaps exist for this tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details that don't apply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Preflight check — verifies all tool binaries, Python deps, and wordlists,' providing a specific verb (verifies) and clear resource scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_binary (which checks a single binary) by explicitly checking ALL binaries, deps, and wordlists holistically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence gives explicit timing guidance: 'Run this at the start of an engagement to avoid surprises mid-workflow.' This is clear context for when the tool should be used, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which is a minor gap for a 0-parameter health check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the consequences of each status value ('confirmed' means real/exploitable, 'false_positive' excludes from report, 'unconfirmed' resets to pending), which goes beyond the bare schema. It also clarifies the source of finding_id, adding useful operational context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or failure modes, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the main action is stated in the first sentence, followed by usage context, then parameter details. Each line adds necessary information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to call it, and parameter semantics. It does not mention return values or what happens on failure, but these are not critical for such a focused operation. The overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain both parameters. It does so excellently: finding_id is described as coming from list_unconfirmed_findings, and status is given a detailed breakdown of every accepted value with its semantic meaning. This provides complete guidance beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's verb ('Update') and resource ('validation status of a finding'), making its primary function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only one that modifies finding status, and references list_unconfirmed_findings as the source of finding IDs, reinforcing its specific role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Called by a validation agent after manually verifying a finding.' It implies the tool is for post-verification updates and offers no explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral information. It clearly defines the function as extraction from an HTML string, lists return categories, and explains parameter effects. It doesn't describe side effects, but the operation is inherently read-only and side-effect-free, which is reasonable to infer. It could explicitly state that no network request is made, but the input parameter 'html' makes this clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-organized: first the main purpose, then a usage scenario, then parameter explanations, then the return structure. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple extraction tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description is fully complete. It covers input parameters, return categories, and a typical use case. No critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains 'html' as the input string, 'base_url' as resolving relative links, and 'only_same_origin' with its condition. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Extract all links') on a specific resource ('HTML') and enumerates the link types (anchors, forms, scripts, images). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like html_to_text or http_request, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a concrete use case: 'building a crawl tree without manually grep'ing the response body.' This tells the user when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, which would be even stronger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the two-step masscan+nmap process, the root/sudo requirement for raw sockets, the default rate and its noise implications, and the fact that service detection is optional. This is substantial transparency, though it could also mention potential network disruption beyond 'noisy' or the exact behavior when rate is set to extremes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with line breaks for each parameter, a leading summary, and a final note about permissions. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. Even though it is multi-line, it is concise for the amount of context covered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, when to use it, parameter semantics, required privileges, and what it returns ('open ports with services'). It even includes a note about root/sudo. The only minor gap is the exact output structure, but for an agent selecting and invoking the tool, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: target formats are given (IP, CIDR, hostname), ports default and range syntax explained, rate meaning (pps) and effect (faster vs noisy) noted, and service_detection toggles -sV. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Fast port scan using masscan (discovery) + nmap (service detection).' It uses a specific verb (scan) and identifies the resource (ports), and it distinguishes from sibling nmap_port_scan by emphasizing speed for large ranges. The two-step pipeline is also explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear when-to-use context: 'Much faster than nmap alone for large ranges.' It also gives parameter tuning guidance (e.g., 'Use 1000 for stealth, 10000+ for speed on local networks'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, such as nmap_port_scan for single hosts or recon_sweep for different discovery needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it works on running or completed jobs, returns partial output, and supports tail-based control. It doesn't describe output format or rate limits, but the annotation already covers safety, and these details are useful for expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, usage context second, and param docs last. Every sentence earns its place, and the param docs are formatted clearly with names and explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with two straightforward parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It implies text output via 'lines' and 'tail', which is sufficient without an output schema. No critical gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by documenting both parameters: job_id identifies the job, and tail specifies line count with default 100 and special meaning for 0. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
'Get partial output from a running or completed job' clearly identifies the specific verb (get), resource (job output), and scope (partial output). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_job_status and list_jobs by focusing on output content rather than status or job listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Useful for checking progress before a job finishes' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies it is for progress monitoring on active jobs, and sibling tool names make alternative options obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by saying 'Replace the entire scope', disclosing that the previous scope is fully overwritten. It adds context about the target types accepted, going beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: action, usage timing, and parameter example. No redundancy, all information front-loaded and relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and the parameter format. No additional context is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only lists 'targets' as an array of strings. The description adds essential semantics by defining it as 'list of IPs, CIDRs, domains' and provides a concrete example, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Replace the entire scope with a new list of targets' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like scope_add/scope_remove/scope_clear. The additional phrase 'Use this at the start of an engagement' reinforces the intended use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to use ('at the start of an engagement to set all authorized targets at once'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'entire scope' wording implies it is not for incremental changes, which is sufficient but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the scan_type auto logic (sS if root else sT), the default for service_detection, and the structured return format. However, it doesn't mention potential scan duration, network impact, or that OS guesses may not be produced by default unless OS detection is separately enabled, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each line serves a distinct purpose. The parameter list format is efficient and easy to parse, with no fluff or repetition of schema fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, usage parameters, and return structure, which is comprehensive for a complex tool with no output schema. However, there is slight ambiguity around OS guesses—it lists 'os[]' in the return but doesn't explain that OS detection may require additional nmap flags beyond service_detection, leaving a small gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains all five parameters: targets format (space-separated IPs/ranges/hostnames), ports examples ('1-65535', '22,80,443', 'top100'), scan_type options with auto logic, timing T0-T5, and service_detection as a boolean with default True. This exceeds the baseline and provides comprehensive meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a port scan with XML output and returns structured host/port/service data. It explicitly contrasts with nmap_port_scan (raw text), highlighting the parsing into structured dicts, which effectively differentiates it from the sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly names nmap_port_scan as an alternative and explains the difference: use this tool for structured XML output that doesn't require regex, versus raw text. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and an explicit alternative, meeting the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kali-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Neeraj829784/kali-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Neeraj829784/kali-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kali-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Neeraj829784/kali-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Neeraj829784/kali-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Neeraj829784/kali-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server