zap_attack_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral weight. It does add meaningful context: the server chooses direct vs queued execution, and authSessionId is limited to prepared form-login sessions. Yet it omits what the tool returns, whether the call blocks, whether the scan runs asynchronously, and what side effects beyond initiating a scan occur.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by adding a distinct piece of context: purpose, execution-mode behavior, and auth limitation.

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?

For a 5-parameter action with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin on operational essentials. It never says what the caller receives (e.g., scan ID, status reference), whether the scan starts immediately, or how to monitor it via sibling tools like zap_attack_status. An agent could invoke it correctly but be unable to interpret the result or know next steps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some useful context that aligns with parameters, particularly explaining that the server decides direct vs queued mode, which clarifies when idempotencyKey matters. It mostly restates what the schema already captures for targetUrl and authSessionId, so it does not substantially exceed the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a guided active scan for a specific target host or base URL.' This clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from siblings like zap_crawl_start and zap_passive_scan_wait. The phrase 'after crawl/import setup' adds sequencing that further anchors its role.

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?

It gives clear context for when to invoke this tool: after crawl/import setup, when an active scan is needed. It also notes that the server, not the client, decides direct vs queued execution. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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