whatweb_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains aggression level consequences ('Aggression 3+ sends many requests and may trigger WAF/IDS alerts') and the allowed hosts constraint. It also describes the return value. This is solid behavioral disclosure, though it stops short of detailing error handling or authentication requirements.

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 a clear purpose sentence, separate Args/Returns/Note sections, and no filler. Each line provides necessary information, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 an output schema and three well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, and important constraints like allowed hosts and potential WAF alerts. The only minor omission is explicit mention of error handling, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained: target with an example URL, aggression with a range and meaning, timeout as an override. The notes further clarify aggression behavior, giving the agent a complete understanding of parameter semantics.

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 function: 'Detect web technologies, CMS, frameworks, and WAF using WhatWeb.' This provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wafw00f_scan or nikto_scan, so it's clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 operational context through notes about aggression levels and allowed hosts, e.g., 'Aggression level 1 sends a single request (safe for production)' and 'Target must be in tengu.toml [targets].allowed_hosts.' While this gives useful context, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or what not to use it for.

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