Generate a final security assessment report from a completed penetration testing session by submitting its session ID.
Generate final security assessment report
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Session identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'generate', implying a side effect, but lacks details on whether it overwrites existing reports, requires specific permissions, or returns immediately.
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?
Single sentence is very concise, front-loading the action and object. Could benefit from more context, but no unnecessary words.
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?
Given no output schema and many sibling scanning tools, the description should explain what the report contains and any side effects. It is too sparse for a tool that presumably consolidates results.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'session_id' described as 'Session identifier'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.
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?
Description 'Generate final security assessment report' clearly states it produces a report, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the many scanning tools in the sibling list, but doesn't specify report format or scope.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The only hint is the required 'session_id', but the description does not explain how to obtain it or when the report is ready.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.