scan_waf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions 'attack payload probing' which could be destructive, but fails to warn about potential consequences like triggering alarms or legal issues. Conditional origin discovery is noted but not explained.

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 all techniques, though it is somewhat dense. It is front-loaded with the primary function.

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 is present, and the description does not describe what the tool returns. Given the complexity (four techniques), this is a significant gap. Also lacks safety 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?

Only one parameter (url) with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Target URL for WAF/CDN analysis' already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'WAF and CDN analysis' and lists four specific techniques (WAF identification, CDN detection, WAF fingerprinting, origin IP discovery). It clearly distinguishes from sibling scan tools like scan_ports and scan_http which target different aspects.

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 usage for assessing WAF/CDN configuration but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives such as other scan tools. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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