scan_injection_attacks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only lists types covered. It fails to mention whether this is destructive, whether it requires authentication, what the scan's impact on the target is, rate limits, timeout behavior, or how results are returned. This is a significant gap 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 at a few lines, front-loading the purpose and listing coverage. However, it could add more value (e.g., behavioral info) in the same space without becoming verbose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete for a complex scanning tool. Missing details include scan scope, depth, speed, output format, and safe usage. While listing injection types is helpful, it doesn't reach minimum viability for a tool in a security context with many siblings.

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 must compensate but only mentions the types scanned. The single parameter target_url is not described at all—the description doesn't clarify format (HTTP/HTTPS, with or without path), whether it accepts IP addresses, or any URL constraints. Without adding meaning beyond the raw schema, this is insufficient.

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 performs 'comprehensive injection vulnerability scanning' and lists specific injection types (SQL, NoSQL, Command, Template Injection). This is a clear verb+resource statement, though it could be more specific about what 'comprehensive' means and how it differs from validate_sql_injection.

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 implies use when scanning for injection vulnerabilities but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus validate_sql_injection, validate_xss, or scan_website_comprehensive. It lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives.

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