pentest_web_cors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the classes of test performed (reflected origin, wildcard, null origin, credentialed responses), which is real behavioral content, but says nothing about whether requests are active/intrusive, whether the target must be in scope, or how results are surfaced.

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?

One dense sentence with the resource and the check list front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style leaves the reader to infer the surrounding workflow.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is tested but not what comes back (findings, evidence, severity) or what preconditions apply. An agent knows what the tool does but not how to interpret or sequence it.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the schema gives no meaning beyond 'url'. The description does not clarify whether this is a base URL, a specific endpoint, or a preflight target, so it only partially compensates for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Test CORS handling') and enumerates the exact checks it performs: origin reflection, wildcard, null origin, credentialed responses. This clearly separates it from neighboring web tools such as pentest_web_headers, pentest_web_host_header and pentest_web_open_redirect, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this should be run against a web endpoint when CORS misconfiguration is in scope. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. scope check), and no pointer to an alternative tool for broader header analysis.

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