scan_paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists techniques but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether results are returned synchronously. The mention of severity ratings hints at output but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence front-loads the key capabilities. Second sentence emphasizes efficiency. Every sentence earns its place.

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, so description should explain return values. It mentions 'severity ratings' but does not describe the output format or structure. Lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand what to expect.

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 baseline 3. The description adds context about 200+ paths and 11 categories, but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., enum values or validation rules).

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's purpose: path intelligence probing of sensitive files and directories across multiple categories, with specific techniques like robots.txt parsing, secret detection, and debug endpoint discovery. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 200+ paths and 5 techniques in one call.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enumerate' or 'scan_http'. The description implies it's a comprehensive path probe but does not provide exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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