acunetix_start_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only labels the operation as '【写操作】' (write operation) and gives the POST endpoint, which implies mutation. It lacks critical behavioral details like whether the scan runs asynchronously, what side effects occur, or how to monitor progress. For a state-changing action, this is insufficient.

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 extremely compact, with a clear write-operation marker followed by two bullet points explaining parameters. Every element serves a purpose, no fluff, and it is immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no nested objects), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values or follow-up actions. It only explains how to invoke the scan, not what the response is or how to track the scan, leaving the user without enough context to use the result effectively.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates by explaining each parameter: target_id is the target ID sourced from acunetix_list_targets, and profile_id is the scan profile ID from acunetix_list_scan_profiles. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, showing how to obtain valid values.

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 action: '对目标启动扫描' (start a scan on a target), identifying both the verb and resource. It also notes the HTTP endpoint and write operation, distinguishing it from siblings 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?

The description provides clear context by telling users to obtain target_id from acunetix_list_targets and profile_id from acunetix_list_scan_profiles, effectively guiding when to use this tool (after listing targets and profiles). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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