scanner_owasp_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention any behavioral traits, such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Although it is clearly a read operation, the lack of explicit disclosure reduces transparency.

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, complete sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It clearly states what data the tool displays, which is sufficient for an agent to understand its function and expected output.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers all input semantics. The description adds value by listing the output fields, but since there are no params, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. There is no need for additional parameter explanation.

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 displays the full OWASP MCP Top 10 with specific details (ID, title, description, remediation, CWE mappings, references). It uses a specific verb ('display') and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like scanner_list_checks or report_owasp_compliance by its focused 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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as report_owasp_compliance or other scanners. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be invoked.

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