pentest_defectdojo_export

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: it may create the product and engagement if they don't exist (an implicit write side effect), and dry_run=True previews without contacting DefectDojo (network suppression). It is silent on permissions/API credentials and on what close_old actually closes, which for a mutation tool is a real 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?

Three tight sentences: the action and side effect come first, then the scan_type enumeration, then the dry-run escape hatch. No filler, though the parenthetical scan_type examples make the middle sentence dense enough that the dry_run line could be easy to miss.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core flow and the main risk mitigation but omits the semantics of close_old and minimum_severity and gives no indication of what the call returns (import ID, URL, or counts). Adequate but not complete.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain scan_type (with concrete allowed values), report_path (must point to the matching file), and dry_run, but says nothing about product, engagement_name, close_old, or minimum_severity, leaving roughly half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Export findings to DefectDojo') and adds the important scoping detail that the product and engagement are ensured to exist before the import. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling pentest_defectdojo_status, though it does not name the boundary against pentest_burp_import / pentest_zap_import.

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?

Usage is implied: you use this to push results into DefectDojo, and the scan_type examples imply the workflow (pick a scan_type matching your report). It never states explicit whens or when-nots, nor which sibling import tool to use instead for Burp or ZAP output, so the agent must infer routing.

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