Wapiti Scan

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly warning that the tool is aggressive, gated, and not observational. It details payload types, crawling behavior, and enforced limits, making side effects and operational constraints transparent.

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 information-dense and each paragraph adds useful details, but the formatting is slightly repetitive and awkward with repeated 'Aggressive' and 'Bounds' emphasis. Still, it remains focused and purposeful.

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 includes required approval context, operational bounds, rate-limit caveats, and alternative-tool guidance. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not necessary, and the input calling context is fully covered.

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 has no field descriptions, but the tool description compensates by explaining target, profile values, max_minutes clamping, and crawl depth caps. Target and depth are somewhat implicit, but still sufficiently covered.

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 function: 'Crawl and attack a web application with wapiti.' This distinguishes it from sibling scanning tools by naming the specific engine (wapiti) and its active attack behavior.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as preferring nuclei with -rl for strict rate limits. It also explains profile options and server-side bounds, giving clear context for safe usage.

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