sast_ssrf

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

With no annotations, the description reveals the tool's scanning targets and condition, but lacks details on performance, file types processed, or any side effects. It is minimally transparent beyond the core purpose.

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 clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool scans for and the input needed. However, it omits what the user receives (e.g., results format) and how output integrates with sibling report tools.

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?

The single parameter 'path' has 100% schema description coverage. The tool description reiterates it as 'directory path containing source files', adding no new meaning beyond the 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 it performs AST scanning for SSRF vulnerabilities, listing specific functions (fetch(), axios.get/post(), http.request()) and the condition (user-controlled input without domain validation). It distinguishes from sibling sast_* tools.

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 when scanning for SSRF, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sast_command_injection or when not to use it. No exclusions or context on prerequisites are given.

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