scan_website_comprehensive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states that the scan is comprehensive and covers 25+ attack vectors. It does not disclose whether the scan is destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or could affect the target system. Essential behavioral traits are missing.

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 sentence of 7 words, very concise and front-loaded. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but it sacrifices detail to the point of being too brief for a tool that likely has complex behavior.

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's broad scope (25+ attack vectors), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about expected output, duration, prerequisites, side effects, and how the results are returned. Without output schema or annotations, the agent cannot fully understand the tool's implications.

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 adds no meaning to the single parameter (target_url). It does not explain expected format (URL vs IP), whether protocol is needed, or any constraints. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 explicitly states the tool runs a comprehensive vulnerability scan covering 25+ attack vectors. This clearly specifies the verb and resource, and the mention of 25+ vectors distinguishes it from more targeted sibling tools like scan_ports or scan_injection_attacks.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include many specific scans (e.g., scan_injection_attacks, scan_ssl_tls), but the description does not indicate that this tool is for a broad initial sweep or that specific tools should be used for deeper analysis on particular vectors.

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