pentest_tool_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only says what is reported, not how. It does not state that the call is a local, read-only probe with no network side effects, whether it checks versions or just presence, how long it takes, or what the result contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It fits the simplicity of a zero-argument status tool.

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?

The tool is simple and its purpose is conveyed, but there is no output schema, so the description is the only place that could explain the shape of the result (e.g. per-tool name plus installed/version fields) and it does not. For a diagnostic tool whose whole value is its return value, that is a real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. The description correctly implies the call needs no input.

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?

Specific verb ('Show') plus a specific resource ('external security tools installed / missing'), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling status tools (pentest_zap_status, pentest_burp_status, pentest_defectdojo_status) that report on integrations rather than local tool availability. It never explicitly names those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance is given — nothing says to call this before running scan tools, nor how it relates to the ZAP/Burp/DefectDojo status tools. The agent must infer the pre-flight-check use case on its own.

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