vulnforge_full_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits whether authentication/target access is required, how long a full scan takes, whether generated patches are actually applied or only returned, and what happens if a layer code is omitted (0 required params). It does disclose that output includes unified findings and patches, which is the only behavioral signal.

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 scope and output are stated up front. It could not be much shorter without losing content, though it does no routing work.

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 four-parameter tool with a nested object, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves the agent guessing about parameter formats, preconditions, and whether the tool is safe/non-destructive.

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% and the description explains none of the four parameters. The layer names (Web/API/DB) loosely map to frontendCode/apiCode/dbCode, but what those codes actually are (repo paths? endpoints?) and the purpose of 'headers' (auth? request injection?) remain undefined.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Runs an end-to-end multi-layer vulnerability audit across Web, API, and DB layers.' The multi-layer scope implicitly distinguishes it from the per-layer siblings (vulnforge_audit_web/api/db), but it never names them or explicitly frames itself as the aggregate alternative.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: it doesn't say when to run the full scan versus the three per-layer audit siblings, nor where vulnforge_inject_patch fits relative to the 'ready-to-apply patches' this tool produces. Only the phrase 'end-to-end' hints at context.

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