zap_findings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the precondition that scan evidence must be visible to the caller, but says nothing about read-only semantics, rate limits, pagination, or whether results change over time.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return value, then the precondition. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, timing, and the key visibility precondition. It leaves the exact return structure unspecified, but the 'grouped risk summary' characterization is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseUrl semantics (nonblank, covered by visible scan evidence, with an example) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates this requirement rather than adding new parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the first-pass findings view') and specifies the output form ('concise grouped risk summary'). This implicitly but clearly distinguishes it from the sibling zap_findings_details, which would imply the detailed drill-down.

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?

Gives clear temporal context ('after a scan or passive-scan wait') and a use case ('fast triage'), routing the agent appropriately. It does not explicitly name zap_findings_details as the alternative for deeper inspection or state when not to use this tool.

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