corscanner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'scanner' without detailing what the scan does, whether it sends requests, potential impact, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a security tool that could be intrusive.

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 extremely short but lacks essential details, making it under-specified rather than concise. It does not follow a structure that helps the agent understand usage, parameters, or behavior.

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 absence of output schema and low parameter documentation, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what results are returned, the scan's scope, or how session_id is used. The tool's complexity demands more context.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (dry_run has one). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters. The purpose of session_id and url are not clarified beyond their names, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'CORS misconfiguration scanner' clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning for CORS misconfigurations. It specifies the resource (CORS misconfiguration) and implies scanning as the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nmap, sqlmap, etc., which focus on other aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other scanners among the siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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