discover_surface

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions rate limiting and gate prerequisites but does not disclose whether the tool modifies data, side effects, or output format. This is minimal and insufficient.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks a clear structure. It does not start with the main purpose and relies on the agent knowing what 'Katana' and 'preflight gates' are. Brevity is achieved at the expense of clarity.

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 (6 parameters, no schema descriptions), the description is incomplete. It omits key context: what 'Katana' is, how to set depth/max_urls, and what 'preflight gates' entail. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description adds no explanation for parameters like depth, max_urls, or override_guarded. It only alludes to 'session rate limit' without connecting to session_id, leaving the agent with no guidance.

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 does not explicitly state that the tool discovers URLs or attack surface; it only says 'Use Katana...' which is vague. It fails to provide a clear verb+resource purpose, making it difficult for an agent to understand its primary function.

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 that this tool should be used after scope and preflight gates pass and at session rate limit, which provides some context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'scope_check' or 'preflight_target', nor does it state when not to use it.

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