acunetix_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and scope ('current user'), indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the response format, potential data volume, or any caveats about the summary, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes the endpoint plus the three summary categories. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main functionality—providing a summary of scans, targets, and vulnerabilities for the current user. It could specify the exact metrics (e.g., counts) returned, but for a stats endpoint this is reasonably 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter information to provide. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, but with no parameters to document, this is not a shortfall. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4.

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 retrieves current user statistics via a specific endpoint and summarizes scans, targets, and vulnerabilities. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like acunetix_list_scans and acunetix_list_vulnerabilities, which return detailed records rather than aggregated summaries.

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 is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word '汇总' (summary) implies it is intended for high-level overviews, but the description does not explicitly recommend this tool over list_* tools for summary data or clarify that detailed lists require other tools.

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