scan_url

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

With no annotations, the description covers many behavioral aspects like injection types, WAF bypass, proxy, and timeouts. However, it omits disclosing that scanning sends potentially intrusive requests to the target, which is a significant behavioral trait.

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 with a clear purpose first, then parameter documentation. It is slightly verbose with a vague 'Returns' line, but overall efficient for a 13-parameter tool.

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?

Input parameters are thoroughly documented, but the return value is minimally described as 'Scan results with vulnerabilities found'. Given no output schema, more detail on the result format would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description provides full parameter documentation. Each parameter includes explanation and examples, e.g., 'target_url: Target URL with query parameters to scan (e.g., http://example.com/page?id=1)'. This far exceeds the schema.

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 'Scan a URL for SQL injection vulnerabilities in all detected parameters' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_get_parameter and scan_post_parameter which focus on individual parameters.

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 scans all parameters of a URL, contrasting with sibling tools that scan specific parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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