extensive_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions duration (20-45 min) and active scanning (XSS, SQLi), but omits behavioral details like potential disruption, permissions needed, or rate limits. The consent parameter is in schema but not reinforced in description.

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?

Single sentence packs many items but is not structured (e.g., bullet points). It is concise but could be more readable. No wasted words, but the long list reduces clarity.

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?

No output schema, and description fails to mention return values, error handling, or how results are presented. Given the tool's complexity (multiple scan types), more context is needed for effective use.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema; it does not explain how to use 'target' or the purpose of 'consent' and 'dry_run' in the context of the scan.

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 clearly states it performs a comprehensive scan with a detailed list of components (WAF detection, full recon, top-1000 port scan, etc.), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like nmap, sqlmap, or dalfox, which are subsets of this scan.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus individual sibling tools (e.g., nmap, sqlmap). The description implies it's a catch-all but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent unclear about trade-offs.

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