pentest_zap_spider

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

With no annotations, the description does carry useful behavioral signal: this is a state-changing start operation and it is asynchronous, yielding a scan id that must be polled. It says nothing about required authentication, expected duration, whether a spider can be cancelled, or whether duplicate spiders are deduplicated — gaps that matter for a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 clause-driven sentence with the action, the precondition, and the return value front-loaded. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and return value. What is missing is the handoff detail — which of the several ZAP status tools to poll with the returned id — plus any note on scope enforcement failure behavior.

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% for the single 'url' parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds one meaningful constraint — the URL must be in scope — but does not clarify accepted format (full URL vs host, scheme, path depth) or what happens if the URL is out of scope. Partial compensation, not full.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Start a ZAP spider') and constrains the target ('against an in-scope URL'), so the agent knows this launches a spider as opposed to an active scan. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings such as pentest_zap_active_scan or pentest_web_crawl, leaving that differentiation to the name alone.

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?

'Against an in-scope URL' implies a scope-check precondition, and 'returns the scan id for polling' implies a follow-up step. However, no alternative is named (zap_status vs zap_scan_status vs zap_active_scan) and there is no explicit when-not guidance, so the routing is only implied.

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