dast_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the parallel execution model (ZAP + Nuclei), the underlying machine (Kali), the auth support matrix, and the output as a 'versioned consolidated report saved on Kali.' It doesn't mention scan duration, rate limits, or whether it requires the target to be reachable from the Kali machine, but the operational profile is substantially richer than average.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then engines, then auth, then output. No filler and each sentence adds incremental information. Slightly dense but well-organized.

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?

For a complex 13-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its engines, auth options, and output location. It does not need to explain return values (report is saved, not returned) and the schema handles parameters. Minor gaps around sibling selection and failure modes remain.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters in detail, including enums and defaults. The description adds the auth-mode summary ('HTTP Basic, Bearer token, Cookie injection, Form-based login') and names the two engines, but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Perform Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) against a running web application.' It further distinguishes itself by naming the exact toolchain (OWASP ZAP spider + passive/active scan, Nuclei) and scope (running web app). Against siblings like nmap_scan, nikto_scan, or sqlmap_scan, the function is clearly differentiated.

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 usage for a running web application and lists supported auth modes, but never explicitly states when to choose this over siblings like nikto_scan or sqlmap_scan, nor when-not to use it. For an agent selecting among ten security scan tools, this is a meaningful gap.

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