burp_suite_security_issue_definitions

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 value by listing the returned data fields (name, description, remediation, references), but omits operational details like data volume ('all' implies large), caching behavior, or whether Burp must be running.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. Every element serves a purpose: the action verb, the scope ('all'), the resource, and the output field preview.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no inputs) and existence of an output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It previews the return structure without redundantly documenting the full output schema, though noting it retrieves static reference data versus live findings would improve completeness.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not fabricate parameter details, though the parenthetical field list could be misinterpreted as parameter documentation.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Burp Suite security issue definitions'), distinguishing it from sibling scan-operation tools like scan_urls_for_vulnerabilities or get_scan_summary which handle dynamic scan execution and results.

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?

While the tool's purpose is distinct from operational scan management siblings (implied by 'definitions' vs 'scan'), there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_scan_summary for actual findings, or prerequisites like requiring Burp connectivity.

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