acunetix_list_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the HTTP GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. Every word earns its place, 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?

This is a simple list operation with minimal schema and no output schema. The description gives the purpose and endpoint but lacks details on response format, pagination, or prerequisites. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more context would be helpful.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'limit' with 0% description coverage. The endpoint string '?l=N' maps the limit parameter to the query string, providing some context, but it does not explicitly explain that it controls the number of reports returned.

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 lists generated reports and includes the specific API endpoint (GET /api/v1/reports?l=N). It uses a specific verb and resource, and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like acunetix_list_scans or acunetix_list_targets.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but it does not mention when to prefer this over other list tools or any exclusion criteria.

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