zap_crawl_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get status,' implying a read operation, but does not specify whether this is safe, whether it has side effects like consuming resources, or what the operationId represents (e.g., a unique identifier returned by the start tool). It lacks details about what the status response contains or any state changes, leaving a significant gap given the absence of annotations.

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, concise sentence that gets to the point immediately. It does not waste words, and the purpose is front-loaded. The only minor issue is that it could have added a bit more context without becoming verbose, but for a one-parameter status tool, this is well-structured.

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 has a simple input schema and no output schema, and annotations are absent. Given that it is a status-checking tool for a crawl operation, the description should clarify what kind of status information the agent can expect (e.g., progress, completion) and any prerequisites (e.g., the operation must have been started). It does not provide enough context for an agent to know what to do with the result, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 describes the operationId parameter as 'Guided crawl operation ID returned by zap_crawl_start' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional information about the parameter (e.g., format, whether it is required), but it does confirm the parameter is an operation ID, which is helpful. Since the schema covers fully, this is adequate.

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 purpose: get status for a guided crawl operation, distinguishing it from status tools for other operations like zap_passive_scan_status and zap_attack_status. However, it could be more explicit about what 'guided crawl' entails and how it differs from related crawl tools like zap_crawl_stop, though the name and input schema suggest it.

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 implies usage when you need to check the status of a crawl started with zap_crawl_start, as indicated by the parameter description. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other status tools (e.g., zap_attack_status) or provide any alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on the operation type.

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