vulnforge_audit_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral content beyond the title by naming the exact weakness categories (BOLA/IDOR, unauthenticated mutations, missing rate limits, mass assignment), but it never says whether the analysis is static-only, whether code is executed, whether any permission or network access is required, or how findings are reported.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the detection list follows. The four-item enumeration is information-dense and each item earns its place, though the sentence is long enough to be slightly list-heavy.

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 two-parameter audit tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description establishes scope but is thin on everything else: no result format, severity model, scope limits, or handling of non-JS frameworks beyond the 'etc.' hint. Adequate to select the tool, incomplete for predicting its behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (routeCode, sourceFile), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as accepted languages, size limits, or how sourceFile affects reporting, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (audits) and a precise resource (REST/GraphQL endpoint handlers), then enumerates the four vulnerability classes it detects. An agent can distinguish this from vulnforge_audit_web and vulnforge_audit_db by the 'API endpoint handlers' scope, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer 'use this when you have API route handler source', but there is no guidance on when to prefer vulnforge_full_scan or the sibling audits, and no prerequisites or ordering advice.

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