zap_report_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds a real behavioral precondition (run it only after the passive scan backlog drains) and signals that 'guided defaults' are applied, but says nothing about where the artifact lands, whether it is persisted, or how it is later retrieved (a sibling, zap_report_read, exists for that).

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence is pure routing information. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

Adequate on selection but thin on the lifecycle: with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is told what to generate but not what it receives back or how to read the resulting artifact. The schema partially compensates by spelling out scoping and theme behavior.

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 schema already explains theme, format and baseUrl, including the non-obvious rule that omitting baseUrl scopes to the full session. The description contributes nothing param-specific ('human-shareable' loosely hints at the html format), so baseline 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+resource ('Generate a human-shareable report artifact') and immediately separates itself from sibling triage tools (zap_findings_summary/zap_findings_details). An agent can tell what this produces versus its nearest siblings without opening any schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('after passive scan backlog drains') and an intent ('export or handoff artifact'), plus a named alternative for interactive triage. It stops short of disambiguating the other report-related siblings (zap_report_read, zap_scan_history_export, zap_scan_history_customer_handoff), which would be the natural follow-up question.

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