validate_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the three checks performed and states that it returns validation status and restrictions, giving a solid understanding of the tool's behavior without side-effect details.

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 succinct and well-structured with a numbered list of checks. It front-loads the purpose and each sentence adds value, making it an example of efficient writing.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, input formats, configuration sources, and return behavior. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides only a bare string 'target' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that the target may be an IP, hostname, CIDR, or URL, providing essential semantic meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool validates whether a target is allowed for scanning, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the many scanning siblings (nmap, nuclei, etc.) by being a pre-scan validation gate.

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 clear context on what the tool does—checks a target against input validation, allowlist, and blocklist—indicating its use as a pre-scan check. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks full guidance.

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