pentest_burp_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that credentials come from BURP_API_URL/BURP_API_KEY, which is useful, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it hits the network, what happens on failure, or what the probe reports back – and there is no output schema to cover return values.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and target. It is arguably too terse for the behavioral disclosures it omits, but nothing present is wasted.

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 status/probe tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still needs to know what a successful probe returns, whether failures raise errors or report a down state, and how it relates to the other Burp siblings. None of that 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?

With zero parameters there is nothing for the schema to describe, so the baseline is 4. The description does add that connectivity settings are sourced from environment variables rather than arguments, which is exactly the kind of context a parameterless tool needs.

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 verb 'probe' plus the resource 'Burp REST API' gives a rough sense of the action, and the mention of DAST/Enterprise narrows the target product. But 'probe' is vague – it doesn't say it returns a health/connectivity status versus any other Burp operation, and the sibling names pentest_zap_status and pentest_defectdojo_status imply a status-check pattern that the description only hints at.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the sibling pentest_burp_api or pentest_burp_import, and no prerequisites such as needing BURP_API_URL/BURP_API_KEY set first. The environment-variable hint implies configuration is required but does not say what to do when it's absent or when the probe fails.

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