scan_high_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses HTTP-only operation, high/critical templates, and adherence to session scope/rate limits. However, it omits whether the tool is destructive or read-only, and does not explain effects like state changes or output format.

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, front-loaded sentence of 12 words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details.

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 presence of 5 parameters, 3 required, and sibling tools, the description hints at workflow integration (session scope, preflight run) but does not explain the relationship to session preflight or the role of preflight_run_id. Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation.

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%. The description provides no information about any of the 5 parameters (urls, profile, session_id, override_guarded, preflight_run_id). The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 runs HTTP-only Nuclei high/critical templates, specifying the verb 'Run', the resource 'Nuclei high/critical templates', and constraints. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_authorization or discover_surface by focusing on scanning.

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 mentions 'under session scope, rules, and rate limit' but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like preflight_target or verify_finding. There is no mention of exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond session scope.

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