scan_host_vulnerabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Deep vulnerability scan' but fails to explain side effects (e.g., network noise, potential blocking by IDS/IPS), authentication needs, scan duration, or whether the tool modifies the target. The description is critically underinformative 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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks any structural breakdown (e.g., bullet points for usage or parameters). Every word is used, but the information density is low, making it minimally acceptable.

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 complexity of a vulnerability scanning tool (no output schema, no annotations, single parameter), the description fails to explain what constitutes a vulnerability scan, return value format, or how it differs from related scans. It is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (target_ip), the description should clarify what format the IP must be in (IPv4? IPv6? CIDR? Hostname?). No such guidance is given, leaving the agent without necessary semantic context beyond the parameter name.

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 says 'Deep vulnerability scan on a specific host', which clearly indicates the verb (scan) and resource (vulnerabilities, specific host). It distinguishes from sibling 'scan_ports' (port level) and 'scan_website_comprehensive' (website level) by specifying 'host' and 'deep vulnerability scan', but 'deep' is vague and doesn't define scope precisely.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., network access, permissions) or contrast with sibling tools like 'scan_ports' or 'scan_website_comprehensive'. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and vague description.

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