phishark_rescan

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'capture evidence' and 'force a fresh scan' but does not explain what evidence is captured, what side effects occur (e.g., overwriting previous results), or any authorization or rate-limit details. Minimal value beyond annotations.

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 14-word sentence that front-loads the key verbs ('Capture', 'force') and includes the essential information. No wasted words.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety hints, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic action. However, it could clarify the 'evidence' capture process or the scan result format to improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuous). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly omits any.

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 the tool's action ('capture evidence', 'force a fresh scan') and the resources involved ('current Playwright page evidence', 'PhiShark browser-deep scan'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like phishark_security_status by indicating that it triggers a new scan rather than querying status.

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 implies usage when a fresh scan is needed, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., phishark_security_status). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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