Jaeles Scan

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the tool is aggressive and requires human approval, which is not captured in annotations. It also explains the return behavior (inline vs job_id) and the source restriction ('rules/jaeles/ only'). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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, with four sentences covering the core action, the approval warning, selector semantics, source path, and return behavior. The most critical information (aggressive, requires approval) is front-loaded. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more organized by grouping related 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema, asynchronous behavior), the description covers key operational details: signature loading path, selector syntax, and inline vs. job_id return. It does not describe the output format, but an output schema exists, so that is acceptable. It also does not mention any potential side effects beyond being aggressive, which is covered by the approval requirement. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to call 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the selector parameter with examples ('cordon/*' or 'cve/*') and clarifying wait_seconds by describing the return condition. The target parameter is not explicitly described, but its meaning is obvious from the purpose statement ('against in-scope targets'). Overall, it adds value for two of three parameters.

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's purpose: 'Run Jaeles YAML signatures (plugin class C) against in-scope targets.' It specifies the action (run), the resource (Jaeles YAML signatures), and the context (in-scope targets). This distinguishes it from sibling scanners like nuclei_scan or nikto_scan by naming a specific tool and signature class.

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 explains what the tool does and mentions the selector and return behavior, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions that favor jaeles_scan over other scanners, nor any 'when not to use' guidance. The aggressive/approval warning is a caution, not a usage guideline.

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