scan_http

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

No annotations are provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'smart skipping' but does not disclose if the tool is destructive, read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Safety profile is unclear for a scanning tool.

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 efficiently front-loads the purpose and lists techniques in a compact, comma-separated manner. No redundant text, though the list is long; still earns its space.

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 the tool's complexity (29 techniques) and lack of output schema, the description omits details on result format, error handling, and usage constraints. Adequate but leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 a single parameter 'url' described as 'Target URL for HTTP fingerprinting'. The description adds no further parameter-level details, meeting the baseline for high coverage but providing no extra value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs comprehensive HTTP and web fingerprinting, listing numerous specific techniques. It distinguishes itself from sibling scan tools (like scan_ports, scan_dns) by focusing solely on web-layer reconnaissance.

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 in-depth HTTP analysis but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. 'Smart skipping' hints at efficiency, but no clear when-to/when-not-to guidance.

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