Wstg Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful context: 'Retrieval, not automation' and 'Touches nothing and costs no budget' clarify side effects and budget implications. It also states the tool does not judge applicability, which goes beyond annotations and helps set agent expectations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, four bullet points, and a closing behavioral note. It is not overly verbose, though the examples and extra behavioral sentences add length. It front-loads the purpose and keeps the most important info early. A tight, efficient text.

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 moderate complexity (4 optional params, no required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains all inputs, the retrieval-only nature, and the lack of side effects. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the output schema exists and the description hints at what a test contains ('what to check and why'). Enough for an agent to call 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It does this exceptionally: each of the four parameters is explained with a clear purpose, example values, and a precedence order ('most specific first'). This is far beyond what the schema provides and fully disambiguates parameter usage.

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 states the exact action ('Query the OWASP Web Security Testing Guide') and the purpose ('what to test next'), with four explicit query modes and examples. It is specific and distinct from siblings like 'technique_lookup' or 'research_guidance' by naming the exact resource (WSTG) and its retrieval-only nature.

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 gives clear 'how to use' guidance (four ways, most specific first) but never mentions alternatives or when not to use it. There is no explicit comparison to siblings like 'technique_lookup' or 'research_guidance', leaving the choice to the agent's inference. It clearly implies the use case (WSTG lookup) but lacks exclusion criteria.

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