Scan XSS Patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and read-only. The description adds behavioral context by listing specific patterns it detects (superglobal output, Blade/Twig unescaped echo), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose output format or potential side effects, but annotations cover the critical safety aspects.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key detection targets. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word earns its place.

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 schema coverage (100%) and annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description adequately explains what the tool does but does not describe the return values or format. Since no output schema exists, this leaves some uncertainty about how results are presented. The tool is straightforward, but completeness could be improved by mentioning output structure.

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 100% description coverage, with both parameters providing clear meaning (path and projectPath). The tool description does not add any further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 detects XSS patterns, specifically citing direct superglobal output and unescaped echo in Blade/Twig. The verb 'detects' and the resource 'XSS patterns' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_sql_injection or scan_vulnerable_functions by focusing on XSS.

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 implies usage for XSS scanning but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_vulnerable_functions or scan_sql_injection. No direct when/when-not guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and context.

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