websex_zap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful execution semantics: argv tokens are passed directly and 'shell parsing is never used,' and commands are scoped to an engagement namespace. However, it says nothing about mutation risk, required permissions, rate limits, or output behavior for a tool that clearly launches a scanner.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most important execution constraints. No filler or repetition; only slightly dense with back-to-back constraint sentences.

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?

The output schema is present, so return values need no explanation, and the description adequately covers the execution model (no shell parsing, namespace scoping, relative paths). What it omits is the purpose-level context an agent needs to choose this over the dozens of other web/scan siblings, leaving it adequate but incomplete for a tool in such a crowded namespace.

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 must compensate. It partially does: 'argv tokens' explains the `arguments` array (no shell splitting), 'the selected engagement namespace' maps to `engagement_id`, and 'relative paths for engagement artifacts' hints at `working_directory`. The `stdin` parameter is not addressed at all, and the mappings remain implicit rather than explicit.

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+resource ('Run zap from the WebSex web toolkit') and identifies the underlying binary (`zaproxy`), which distinguishes it from the many other exec/wrapper siblings like websex_execute or websex_bash. It does not, however, explain what ZAP is or what class of task it serves, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as websex_curl, websex_nuclei, or other web-scanning siblings. The only contextual hint is that it 'runs from the selected engagement namespace' with relative paths, which is operational context rather than selection guidance.

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