acunetix_list_scans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The GET method and the verb 'list' implicitly indicate a read operation, but the description does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that includes the resource verb, endpoint, and query parameter convention. Every word contributes useful information with zero filler, and it is immediately understandable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose but lacks any context about return values, when to prefer this over sibling list tools, or how the limit parameter affects results. It is minimally viable but leaves an agent to guess on operational details.

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 provides the parameter name 'limit' with type integer and default 20, but no description. The tool description adds the concrete mapping to the query parameter 'l' via the endpoint (GET /api/v1/scans?l=N), which helps an agent construct the actual API request. This adds semantic value beyond the raw schema, though it does not explain the meaning of the limit value itself.

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 intended action ('列出扫描任务' = list scan tasks) and provides the specific API endpoint (GET /api/v1/scans), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling list tools (e.g., list_targets, list_vulnerabilities), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It neither states exclusions nor mentions any prerequisites or context. With 13 sibling tools present, an agent would have to infer the use case purely from the resource name, which is insufficient.

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