vulnforge_audit_web

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it omits key traits: whether it is read-only, whether it performs network requests against `url`, authentication requirements, and what all-optional parameters mean (it is unclear what happens when all four are empty). It also never describes the shape or severity of findings, leaving the agent without behavioral context for an audit operation.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and the audited surfaces, with no filler or repetition. The trailing list of checks is long but each item is substantive, so no sentence needs removing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for what the tool returns, and it stops at enumerating detection categories without describing result format or severity. It compensates somewhat by implicitly naming the findings an agent should expect, and the input side is fully covered by a 100%-documented schema.

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%, so both the parameters and their nested/array types are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description contextualizes what the inputs are used for (headers, cookie strings, HTML/JS sinks) but adds no syntax, format, or combination semantics beyond the schema.

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') plus the exact surfaces inspected — HTTP response headers, cookie flags, and DOM client code — and enumerates the misconfiguration classes it looks for (XSS sinks, weak CSP, missing HSTS, tabnabbing). This target-surface list clearly differentiates it from siblings like vulnforge_audit_api and vulnforge_audit_db, which target different layers.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as vulnforge_full_scan, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether the tool fetches the URL itself or only analyzes supplied artifacts). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the audited surfaces.

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