scan_website

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the quota fallback action, the difference between local and cloud checks, and that the cloud path returns a scan ID. It does not state the local scan return format, but the main side effects and mode behaviors are covered.

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 into three short paragraphs, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds necessary conditional or output information. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has conditional behavior, no output schema, and a nested parameter, but the description covers the main paths: local vs cloud, quota fallback, and scan ID routing. The local quick scan's return format and the full database flow are left implicit, a minor gap given the schema already documents the parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents url, scan_type, and database_connection. The description adds mode-level context but does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 first line states a specific action and resource: scan a website for security vulnerabilities. It clearly distinguishes website scanning from sibling tools like scan_repository and scan_claw_skill, and further explains the two execution modes.

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 gives concrete usage context: without an account use local quick scan; with an account use full cloud scan; on quota exhaustion it falls back. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the conditional guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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