Get Penetration Test Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned sections and noting progress percentage is available, which tells the agent this is safe to poll during a run. It does not discuss response size or rate limits for polling, keeping it below a 5.

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 compact sentences: purpose, payload contents, then usage and routing. The payload enumeration is front-loaded and every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — and it does so by naming the key sections (status, progress, findings summary, executive summary, attack surface, STRIDE). Combined with the follow-up pointer to get_findings, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on the single pentest_id parameter, the schema already explains the UUID format and where to obtain it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve full details for a specific penetration test by its ID') and enumerates what the response contains (status, progress, severity summary, attack surface, STRIDE model). This clearly separates it from turbopentest_get_findings, which is named as the drill-down sibling.

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?

Explicitly gives two usage contexts ('monitor a running scan or review completed results') and routes the agent to turbopentest_get_findings for detailed vulnerability data. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., listing many tests via turbopentest_list_pentests), but the routing guidance is clear.

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