api_kiterunner_scan

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

The description only states the basic action. No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as network requests made, output format, authentication needs, or potential destructiveness. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned.

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 very concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose. No unnecessary words are included, and the structure is clear.

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 has an output schema (according to context signals), the description does not need to explain return values, but it lacks context on prerequisites, installation, or typical usage scenarios. The description is too minimal for a scanning tool that could have important behavioral implications.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic parameter descriptions: 'Target base URL' for url and 'Custom wordlist or kiterunner routes file' for wordlist. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though more detail (e.g., format of wordlist) would be helpful.

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 action 'Scan API endpoints' and the tool 'Kiterunner for route discovery'. It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like api_ffuf_fuzz or api_nuclei_scan which serve different API scanning purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are many other API scanning tools, but the description does not explain when Kiterunner is appropriate or what scenarios it excels in.

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