security_owasp_top10

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

With no annotations, the description adds context: it scans (read-only implied), returns structured output, and depends on other tools for some categories. It discloses potential errors and partial results. Could be more explicit about non-destructive nature, but adequate.

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 split into English and Chinese sections. The English is concise; the Chinese adds structured details (use cases, output, parameters, errors). Well-organized but slightly verbose. Could be more compact.

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 output schema, the description provides output format, error handling, and dependency behavior. The single parameter is well-documented. Covers essential behavioral aspects for a simple scanner tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'url'. The description adds meaning by explaining it is the target URL, required, and provides an example. This adds value beyond the schema's property description.

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 an OWASP Top 10 security check on a URL, returning pass/warn/fail per category. It distinguishes from sibling security tools that focus on specific areas like CSP, headers, SQL injection, XSS, etc., by targeting the OWASP Top 10 categories.

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 Chinese section explicitly lists use cases: pre-launch risk assessment, compliance audits, security gate checks, periodic reviews. It also describes error handling and dependency behavior (e.g., missing header tools cause warn status). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools.

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