Pattern Scan

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) align with the description. The description explicitly states that fetching occurs only when scan_bodies is true, and emphasizes that no findings are filed—only leads. This provides clear transparency about no persistent side effects while acknowledging network requests.

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 but includes necessary details. It is organized into multiple sentences but each provides relevant information—no fluff. The structure is clear, though it could be slightly more compact by merging some clauses without losing meaning.

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 description gives a high-level overview of the output (results grouped by bug class, each candidate naming validator). While the context indicates an output schema exists, it is not provided in the tool definition, so the description offers enough context for an agent to understand the expected result shape. Slightly lacking in specifying output format details.

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 description explains the target parameter (URLs or 'auto') and scan_bodies (fetches and scans response when true). However, max_urls is not described, and the schema has no descriptions. Since most parameters are covered, it earns a 4, but the lack of explanation for max_urls prevents a perfect score.

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: scanning URLs (and optionally response bodies) with vetted gf patterns. It specifies the exact actions (classifies URLs by query parameters/path segments, scans response for sink shapes) and differentiates itself from other scanning tools by mentioning 'vetted gf patterns' and the fact that results are leads, not findings.

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 guidance on when to use the tool, explaining that results are grouped by bug class and each candidate names a validator, implying it is for reconnaissance rather than confirmation. It also mentions the 'auto' option for inheriting URLs from earlier phases. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative scanning tools (e.g., nuclei_scan), so the when-to-use guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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