security_scan

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It explains mode behavior and notes that sqli/xss modes support query parameters in URLs, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects (e.g., scanning may trigger alerts).

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 paragraph that front-loads the key information (version merge and mode list). It is reasonably concise for the amount of context conveyed, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the modes and URL parameter hint. However, it lacks information on expected output format, error handling, or how results should be interpreted, leaving gaps for an agent.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the equivalence to deprecated tools, notes that sqli/xss modes can include query parameters in the URL, and clarifies the default mode. This adds value for the agent.

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's purpose: a consolidated security scanning tool replacing five older tools. It specifies each mode's function and the equivalent deprecated tool, providing strong purpose clarity and differentiation from siblings.

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 when to use this tool (by mentioning deprecated tools) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks alternatives or exclusion criteria, relying on the agent to infer context from the mode list.

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