zap_scan_history_customer_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does provide meaningful behavioral detail: the output is Markdown, customer-safe, and stripped of raw internal IDs, backend references, workspace IDs, and metadata. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or whether the summary is returned directly, but the wording strongly implies a non-destructive generation action.

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, tight sentence that leads with the primary action and output, then adds the most important constraints. There is no filler, repetition of the tool name, or unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity tool with three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it defines what the tool produces)Skip, in what format, and what it intentionally omits. It could be more explicit about whether the summary is returned inline or written somewhere, but the core invocation-relevant information is present.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but the schema already explains limit, target, and handoffName sufficiently, including the note that the raw target selector is never echoed in customer-facing output.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and names a distinct resource: a customer-safe Markdown handoff summary from scan history. It distinguishes itself from siblings like raw list/export or report tools by emphasizing the sanitized, customer-facing output and the explicit exclusion of internal IDs and metadata.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: it creates a customer-safe summary rather than a raw or internal-facing view. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over close siblings such as zap_scan_history_export, zap_scan_history_release_evidence, or zap_report_generate, and it gives no exclusion criteria.

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