quick_scan

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses duration and lists active scan types, implying potential intrusiveness (supported by consent parameter). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool sends network requests or may impact 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists capabilities without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, and the key attribute 'Fast triage scan' is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description omits what the tool returns or reports. Users are left uncertain about the output format (e.g., JSON, report ID). Essential context for using the tool is missing.

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% with clear descriptions for target, consent, and dry_run. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 lists numerous specific checks (WAF detection, subdomain enum, etc.), clearly defining the tool's scope as a fast triage scan. It distinguishes from siblings like extensive_scan by emphasizing speed (10-15 min).

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 use for initial quick assessments with 'Fast triage scan,' but lacks explicit guidance on when to avoid or which sibling to use instead (e.g., extensive_scan for deeper analysis).

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