scan_web_exposure

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only: nothing is written to the target' and emphasizes direct byte-fetching rather than guessing. However, it does not discuss rate limits, authentication needs, or potential impact on target, which would be beneficial given no annotations.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, lists specific checks, and includes a brief read-only note. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

The description covers the tool's function, checks performed, and output nature (genuine findings with evidence). Given the absence of an output schema, it provides adequate context, though it could further detail the output structure or non-functional aspects like parallelism.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional insight over the schema, such as format constraints or usage tips, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 tool probes a live URL to confirm sensitive exposures, listing specific file types. It differentiates from sibling 'list_exposure_checks' which likely lists available checks rather than performing scans.

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 when to use this tool (for active scanning) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tool 'list_exposure_checks' is mentioned but no direct guidance on switching between them.

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