zap_report_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Generate' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or is long-running. It also omits any mention of rate limits or potential impact on scan state. For a generation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise and directly actionable. Every word 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?

For a tool with only optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details and does not explain what 'guided defaults' means or how the report artifact is delivered (e.g., returned vs. stored). Given the simplicity, it is moderately complete but leaves some operational specifics unclear.

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?

All three parameters (theme, format, baseUrl) have descriptions in the input schema, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 that the schema already provides.

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 action ('generate') and the resource ('human-shareable report artifact'), and specifies 'using guided defaults' which, while vague, does not obscure the core purpose. It also differentiates from sibling tools by contrasting with findings summary/details for interactive triage, making its role distinct.

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 explicit usage timing ('after passive scan backlog drains') and directly names the alternative use case ('findings summary/details for interactive triage'). This provides clear guidance on when to select this tool over siblings, leaving nothing to inference.

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