vuln_scan_web_app

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 fails to mention whether the scan is destructive, requires authentication, impacts the target, or produces side effects. The term 'scan' implies read-only but is not explicit, and potential risks (e.g., triggering alerts) are omitted.

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 short sentence (8 words), which is concise but fails to earn its place due to missing critical information. It is front-loaded but insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given 6 parameters (with nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain asynchronous behavior, how to retrieve results, or how to handle authentication. The tool's complexity requires significantly more context.

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 only 17% (only previous_scan_id described). The tool description adds no explanation for any parameter, such as target_url, scan_depth, authentication, or exclude_paths. This forces the agent to rely on a poorly described schema.

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 verb (scan), resource (web app), and scope (OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities), effectively distinguishing from siblings like vuln_scan_network or sast_scan. However, it lacks specificity about the scanning methodology or output.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sast_scan, dependency_audit). No mention of prerequisites, frequency, or scenarios where it should not be used, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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