pentest_zap_scan_status

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, yet it says nothing about what a status response contains, whether there are terminal states, or how long a scan typically takes. Only the two kind values are disclosed, which is thin for an unannotated polling tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the kind constraint; nothing is wasted. The brevity is near the edge of under-specification rather than excess.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain return shape and completion semantics for a polling tool, but it does not. An agent cannot tell how to detect scan completion or failure from this definition alone.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does add the enumeration of kind values ('spider' or 'ascan') that the schema lacks (only a default is given). However, scan_id's format and where to obtain it are left unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: poll the status of a ZAP scan identified by scan_id. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling pentest_zap_status, which could plausibly also return ZAP state.

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 word 'Poll' implies repeated invocation, but there is no guidance on when to call this versus pentest_zap_status, pentest_zap_spider, or pentest_zap_active_scan, and no prerequisites are stated. An agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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