Download Pentest Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's marginal job is to add the state prerequisite, which it does ('must have status complete before a report can be generated'). That is useful non-obvious behavior; the only minor gap is not stating whether download is synchronous or costs credits, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is solid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the format decision guidance — no filler and every sentence carries information.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the key gating condition and format choice. It could note the asynchronous nature or that pdf yields a URL rather than inline content, but the schema already carries that detail.

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% and the format enum is already fully documented in the schema, including the pdf-returns-URL detail. The description repeats the format guidance rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so it lands at the baseline for a well-documented 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?

States a specific verb (download) and resource (full penetration test report) plus the format dimension, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like turbopentest_get_findings or turbopentest_get_pentest that return raw scan data rather than a formatted report.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — the scan must have status 'complete' — which tells the agent when the call will succeed, and it explains which format to pick for which use case. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but the gating condition and format routing are clear.

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