Xss Scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not disclose whether the scan is read-only, what permissions it needs, how long it runs, or what 'custom code' scope actually covers (modules, themes, a specific file). A read-only security scan is safe to assume, but nothing in the text confirms it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly the source of the semantic gaps rather than a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and an entirely undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke this confidently. The scope of the scan and the meaning of 'path' should be stated.

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% and the sole parameter 'path' is undocumented in both schema and description. 'Custom code' faintly implies the path points at source, but it is not stated whether this is a file, directory, module machine name, or absolute path.

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?

States a specific verb (scan), a specific vulnerability class (XSS), and a scope (custom code), which cleanly separates it from sql_injection_scan, csp_audit, and security_scan siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how this differs from security_scan or the other security siblings. The agent is left to infer entirely from the tool name that this is the XSS-specific check.

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