zap_passive_scan_wait

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool blocks until the backlog drainsley, but does not mention what happens on timeout, whether any side effects occur, or what the tool returns. This is adequate for a simple wait operation but leaves some behavioral details implicit.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler. The main action and its purpose are front-loaded, and the description earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple wait tool, the description plus fully documented parameters gives enough to call it, but there is no output schema and no statement about return values or timeout behavior. This is a clear gap, though not severe given the tool's simplicity.

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 two parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter details, which fits the baseline score of 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?

States a specific verb ('wait'), a concrete resource ('passive scan backlog'), and a clear purpose ('before reading findings or generating reports'). This differentiates it from siblings like zap_passive_scan_status meaningless name. The sentence fully explains what the tool does.

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 gives a clear workflow context: use it before reading findings or generating reports. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the sequencing guidance is strong enough to guide an agent's choice.

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