api_kiterunner_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Kiterunner scan' reveals nothing about side effects (e.g., sending requests to the target), output format, rate limiting, or whether it is safe to run. This is completely inadequate for a scanning tool that actively interacts with a target.

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 but not helpfully concise; it is under-specified. Two words cannot convey the necessary context for a tool with multiple parameters and a scanning behavior. Every word is wasted because it adds no value over the tool name.

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?

For a tool that performs active scanning (likely sending HTTP requests), with two parameters and no output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to mention what Kiterunner is, what the scan targets, expected output, or any invocation details, making the tool effectively unusable.

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 input schema has two parameters (url, wordlist) with zero description coverage. The description adds no explanation of what these parameters mean, how they affect the scan, or what the default wordlist behavior is. The agent has no semantic basis for filling them correctly.

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 'Kiterunner scan' is a tautology—it restates the tool name (api_kiterunner_scan) without any additional detail. It does not specify what Kiterunner scans (e.g., web paths, APIs), what it produces, or how it differs from other scan tools like gobuster or ffuf.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. the many sibling scan tools (gobuster, ffuf, dirb, etc.). There is no mention of intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate for a given task.

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