wafw00f_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that detect_all tries all WAFs instead of stopping at first match, mentions timeout override, and requires target to be in allowed_hosts. It also summarizes return content. It lacks details on failure modes or side effects but covers the most critical behaviors.

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, note). It is concise, though the phrase 'before active scanning' appears twice, slightly redundant. Overall, every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, return value summary, and a critical prerequisite (allowed_hosts). The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for return detail, making this description complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Despite the input schema having no descriptions (0% coverage), the Args section thoroughly explains each parameter: target specifies the URL, detect_all controls detection scope, and timeout overrides the scan timeout. This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 it detects Web Application Firewalls (WAF) using WafW00f, naming the specific tool and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling scan tools by focusing on WAF detection rather than general scanning or other specialized activities.

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 explicitly advises running this tool before active scans to avoid false negatives and understand defensive posture. It gives clear workflow context but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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