scan_web

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.