zap_findings_summary

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('concise grouped risk summary') and implies a read-only operation via 'Get,' but it does not mention side effects, repeated-call safety, or other behavioral constraints. Acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately primes the agent for a summarized, risk-grouped result. It could say more about grouping criteria or output structure, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 covers the only parameter 100%, and the description's 'Use baseUrl to scope results to a specific host or path' mirrors the schema text. It therefore adds no meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 states 'Get the first-pass findings view' with a clear verb and resource, and further specifies 'concise grouped risk summary for fast triage.' This distinctively separates it from the more detailed-looking zap_findings_details sibling, even without naming it. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly sets the timing context 'after a scan or passive-scan wait,' telling an agent when this tool is relevant. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls just short of 5.

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