scan_authentication_mechanisms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists coverage areas but does not describe whether the scan is destructive, if it might lock accounts, what permissions are needed, or what the output format is. This is insufficient for a security scanning tool.

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 very concise (two sentences, one with a list) with no filler. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it is well-structured but incomplete.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is inadequate for a scanning tool. It fails to explain what the tool returns, side effects, or how to interpret results, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the sole parameter 'target_url'. The description does not clarify what URL should be provided (e.g., login page, authentication endpoint) or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer.

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 that the tool performs 'Advanced authentication vulnerability scanning' and lists specific areas covered (weak auth, session management, account enumeration). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_ports or scan_website_comprehensive, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as brute_force_login or scan_website_comprehensive. It implies usage for authentication scanning but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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