scan_url

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the seven scan modules, states that findings include severity ratings and a security grade, and reveals that aggressive mode additionally tests rate limiting. This goes well beyond a bare 'scan URL' statement, though it does not mention potential side effects or authorization requirements.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and packed with useful detail in just two sentences. Every clause contributes either scope, module coverage, output expectations, or mode-specific behavior.

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 with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input requirements, scan coverage, output format, and mode distinction. It is slightly incomplete in not positioning itself against the sibling tools, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful behavior for the mode parameter by specifying that aggressive mode tests rate limiting. This supplements the enum values without merely repeating the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a comprehensive security scan on a URL.' It then enumerates seven concrete check categories, so an agent can clearly understand the tool's scope and differentiate it from narrower siblings like check_headers.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool for a full security scan and explains when to choose aggressive mode, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when another tool would be preferable. Usage context is present but alternatives are not directly addressed.

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