acunetix_get_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that this is a GET request, implying read-only, but does not mention what the response contains, error behavior, or authentication requirements. For a simple read tool, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence, to the point, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and includes the API endpoint for reference.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It identifies the endpoint and purpose, but does not describe the returned details or state prerequisites like authentication. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate gap.

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%, and the parameter target_id has no description. The tool description adds minimal meaning via the endpoint placeholder {id}, indicating it is the target identifier. Given the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description's contribution is marginal.

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 states '获取单个目标详情' (Get single target details) and includes the API endpoint, clearly indicating it retrieves details for a single target. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acunetix_list_targets (list all targets) and acunetix_add_target (create a target).

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 retrieving a specific target's details via the endpoint, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternatives are named, though the single-target scope is clear.

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