scan_xss_dalfox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the tool uses Dalfox and detects specific XSS types, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation. It does not contradict any annotations since 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 concise, with three short sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and usage. No unnecessary information.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the purpose, usage context, and detection types. It could mention what the output looks like, but the output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the description adds an example of the expected format. The description does not add much beyond the schema, but the schema is already clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tests for Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) using Dalfox, a specific tool. It also lists the types of XSS detected (Reflected, DOM, WAF bypass), which distinguishes it from other scanning tools in the sibling list like SQL injection or port scanning.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: when the URL contains GET parameters or when Katana discovers forms. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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