acunetix_logout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool logs out and cleans the local session, which communicates a state-changing behavior. However, it does not detail whether the server-side session is also invalidated, how tokens are handled, or if there are any side effects beyond local cleanup. The disclosed behavior is adequate for a simple logout tool but not rich in 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 in Chinese, front-loading the main action and object. Every word contributes meaning, with no padding or repetition. It is appropriately minimal for a no-parameter logout tool.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and local effect. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether the server session is also terminated or if any cleanup steps are irreversible, but for the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters, and per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. It adds no unnecessary parameter-related noise.

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 uses a specific verb '登出' (logout) and specifies the resource '本地会话' (local session), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like acunetix_login and acunetix_use_api_key. The action is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after completing authenticated operations or that it is the counterpart to login. The expected usage is only implicit from the tool's name and sibling context, but the description itself offers no explicit direction.

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