acunetix_add_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature, the criticality enum values, default, and validation error (400 for invalid values), which is useful. However, it omits response format, authentication prerequisites, and potential side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects untold.

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?

The description is extremely concise, using a bullet list to present key information. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff or redundant content. The endpoint and operation are front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 simple add-operation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, key parameters, validation rule, and default values. It is mostly complete but misses the 'description' parameter and return value details, which are minor given the simplicity of the action.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'address' (URL/IP example) and 'criticality' (enum values, default, error behavior). However, it does not document the 'description' parameter, leaving that one without semantic enrichment.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '新增扫描目标' (add scan target) with the specific HTTP method and endpoint (POST /api/v1/targets). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_targets and get_target by explicitly positioning this as the 'add' operation.

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 context is clear that this tool is used to create a new scan target, but no explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions are given. The write operation marker and endpoint make the usage context obvious, though it could have mentioned when to prefer this over acunetix_rest.

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