pentest_zap_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the configuration dependency: ZAP_API_URL is required and ZAP_API_KEY is optional, which tells the agent about authentication needs. However, it says nothing about what happens when ZAP is unreachable (error vs. status payload) or what the check returns beyond 'version'.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and the configuration details in parentheses. Nothing extraneous and nothing missing structurally.

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 no-parameter status probe with no output schema, the definition is minimally complete: it explains what is checked and what configuration is needed. It falls short on return shape, since there is no output schema to tell the agent whether a failure surfaces as an error or as a reachable=false value.

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 the baseline is 4; the description correctly signals that no arguments are needed and points to environment variables as the configuration mechanism instead.

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 and resource: 'Check ZAP API reachability and version'. This is clearly a connectivity/health probe, distinguishable from scan-oriented siblings such as pentest_zap_scan_status and pentest_zap_alerts, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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 purpose implies it should be called to verify ZAP is up before starting spider/active scans, but usage is only implied. There is no explicit 'use this before X' or 'do not use this for scan results' guidance, and no alternative is named.

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