owasp_scan_top10

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Scan codebase for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities.' It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose whether it modifies code, what scope is covered, or what the tool returns. It does not contradict any annotations because none exist.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, though it is minimal rather than rich.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the agent does not know what the scan returns or whether the optional api_key changes behavior. The description does not mention report generation, fixing, or how findings are delivered, making it incomplete for full tool selection confidence.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both directory and api_key are already documented at the schema level. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan'), a resource ('codebase'), and a clear scope ('OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities'). It distinguishes this tool from the fix/report siblings by action, though it does not explicitly contrast it with other security scanning tools like iac_scan_*.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternative scanners, nor does it reference the related owasp_fix_vulnerabilities or owasp_generate_report tools. The optional api_key is present in the schema but its situational need is not explained.

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