acunetix_list_targets

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 adds the returned fields, but does not disclose behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (beyond the implicit limit parameter), authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a minimal disclosure for a list operation.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately states the purpose and key return fields. Every word contributes value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 list operation with one optional parameter, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the HTTP method, the parameter usage, and the returned fields. It lacks details on response structure and pagination behavior, but given the low complexity, these gaps are minor.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions the API query string '?l=N', which maps to the 'limit' parameter, providing some syntactic context. However, it does not explain the meaning of N (e.g., number of results) or the default behavior, leaving the parameter semantics incomplete.

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 scan targets and specifies the returned information (address/ID/vulnerability count). The verb '列出' (list) and resource '扫描目标' (scan targets) pinpoint the action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'acunetix_get_target' which implies a single 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios such as 'use this for an overview of targets; use get_target for details of a single target.' It relies on the tool name and sibling list for context, which is insufficient.

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