anjian_run_controlled_active_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it does disclose an important limitation (MCP cannot authorize or broaden scope), it doesn't state what side effects occur (does it launch external processes? are these destructive scans?), whether it modifies anything, or what safety guarantees exist. For a security scanning tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely short—one sentence. It is 'concise' but arguably under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The caveat sentence about MCP authorization is somewhat useful but placed in the same sentence as the purpose, muddying clarity. There is no front-loading of the most important operational details.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool: 5 parameters, 2 security scanning tools, and no output schema or annotations. Given the complexity and the danger profile of running sqlmap/ffuf, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't document what the output looks like, what prerequisites exist (e.g., authorized target list, which it likely relates to given anjian_list_authorized_targets), or how constraints are enforced. The blanket 'controlled' claim is unexplained.

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 0%, but there are 5 parameters. The description names the two tools (sqlmap, ffuf) which maps to the enum, but provides no semantics for assessment_id, endpoint_url, request_file, or wordlist_path. An agent would not know endpoint_url vs request_file distinction (both default to empty strings) or how wordlist_path relates to ffuf usage. The description adds essentially nothing beyond what the parameter names and enum convey.

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 says it runs controlled SQLMap/FFUF on the terminal, with a caveat that MCP lacks authorization. The verb+resource is identifiable but the description is terse—it doesn't clarify what 'controlled' operation entails, what the tool actually does with inputs (injects a request file? probes an endpoint?), or how it differs from sibling anjian_run_assessment. It also fails to distinguish from anjian_scan_source and anjian_run_assessment, which likely overlap in purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings like anjian_run_assessment, anjian_scan_source, and anjian_capability_plan, there is no indication which should be used for active scanning versus qualitative assessment. The authorization caveat implies usage is restricted but gives no concrete basis for deciding invocation.

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