appknox_dastcheck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'check status' and 'display results when complete' without explaining polling behavior, error handling, or side effects. The prerequisite note is context, not behavioral transparency.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and result, with the prerequisite clause adding necessary context. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully support an agent. It leaves unclear what the 'results' look like, how risk_threshold affects output, and whether the tool blocks until the scan finishes. These gaps are significant for a status-checking tool.

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 already covers both parameters 100%, including the enum for risk_threshold and file_id's purpose. The description adds that file_id comes from appknox_files, which is useful, but it does not meaningfully enrich the parameter meaning beyond that.

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 checks the status of a dynamic scan and displays results when complete, naming the resource (dynamic scan) and action. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like appknox_cicheck, but the niche is reasonably specific.

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 a prerequisite context by noting file_id comes from appknox_files, which helps the agent know when to use this tool in a workflow. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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