acunetix_rest

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It only warns about high-risk write operations and does not disclose authentication requirements, response formats, error behavior, or other side effects. The warning adds a bit of value, but the behavioral details are largely absent.

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 remarkably concise, using a short header and a bullet list. Every line delivers useful information: the scope (/api/v1/*), accepted methods, example paths, parameter purposes, and a safety warning. No filler or redundancy exists.

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?

As a generic REST caller, this tool is inherently broad, and the description gives enough to start using it. However, it omits important context such as authentication mechanism, base URL, error responses, and rate limits. Given the absence of an output schema and the lack of any annotations, a bit more detail would make it complete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations (method, path, params, body) add some meaning beyond raw property types. It clarifies that params are query parameters and body is a JSON request body for write operations, but it lacks examples of value formats or constraints, so it only partially compensates.

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 identifies this as a generic REST caller for /api/v1/* endpoints and lists example paths (targets, scans, etc.), distinguishing it from the more specific sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state that it is the fallback when no specific tool exists, so it stops short of a 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 term '通用' (generic) implies it is intended for when specific wrapper tools are not suitable, but the description does not explicitly recommend using sibling tools or describe when not to use this tool. No exclusions are given, so guidance is only implied.

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