zap_passive_scan_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only status check ('Get') but does not explicitly state that it is non-blocking, does not trigger scans, or has no side effects. It is not misleading, but it lacks explicit behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb 'Get' and the key resource. There is no redundancy, and it is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter status query.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the basic action. However, it omits context about how it relates to zap_passive_scan_wait, which an agent might need to choose correctly. It also does not specify whether the status is a snapshot or whether it returns immediately, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this (empty properties, 100% coverage). With no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies, and there is nothing additional the description needs to clarify.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource: 'passive scan backlog and completion status.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zap_attack_status and zap_crawl_status, which target other scan types. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with zap_passive_scan_wait, so it misses full differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes zap_passive_scan_wait, which likely serves a different purpose (waiting vs. checking status), but the description does not mention this distinction or provide any contextual cues for selection.

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