List Penetration Tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: default ordering is newest-first and each record includes status and finding counts, which tells the agent what the response looks like even without an output schema. It stops short of stating pagination behavior or whether results are scoped to the caller's account, leaving a small gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then use cases, then the sibling alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies return contents and default ordering, which is what the agent needs. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both the limit range and every status enum value. The description only restates that filtering by status and limiting results are supported, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond 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 ('List all your penetration tests') plus the return contents (status, finding counts) and ordering (newest first). It also distinguishes itself from turbopentest_get_pentest, which returns full details for a single ID.

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 three concrete use cases (find pentest IDs, check running scans, review past results) and explicitly names the alternative turbopentest_get_pentest with the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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