security_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and output format (findings with severity levels), but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like execution time, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it performs active probing versus passive analysis.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second describes the return format. Every word contributes essential information with zero waste.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose and output format. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like execution characteristics or error conditions given the tool's security scanning complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'domain' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Run a security scan') and resource ('on a domain'), listing concrete vulnerability types (DNS misconfigurations, SPF/DKIM/DMARC records, cookie security issues) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like dns_lookup or ssl_certificate that perform narrower checks.

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 usage for comprehensive security vulnerability detection on domains, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_lookup (for specific DNS queries) or ssl_certificate (for SSL/TLS checks). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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