xss_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses Dalfox's detection methods, behavior when 'parameter' is empty (tests all), and what the return values include. It does not mention safety or side effects, but as a scanner that only sends HTTP requests, this is less critical.

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 an overview, an IMPORTANT callout, an args list, and a Returns section. It is somewhat verbose and repeats the 'url not target' warning, but every section adds value and the layout improves scannability.

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 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description provides comprehensive coverage: purpose, all parameter behaviors, and return value format. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in detail: 'url' (with mandatory naming warning), 'parameter' (empty means all), 'cookie' (with example), 'header' (with example), 'method' (GET/POST, default), 'data' (with FUZZ placeholder), and 'timeout'. This is exemplary.

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 opens with a clear, specific purpose: 'Test for Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities using Dalfox.' It distinguishes itself from sibling scanners (e.g., sqlmap_scan, commix_scan) by focusing solely on XSS and even lists the detection types (reflected, stored, DOM-based).

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 usage context, including how to specify the target URL, test POST endpoints with data and FUZZ placeholder, and use cookies for authenticated testing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so clearly scoped to XSS that the intended use case is evident.

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