Sync authorized bug bounty scopes by crawling SRC platforms for the latest asset data, with optional forced refresh and platform-specific updates.
同步 SRC 平台的授权测试范围（爬取最新资产信息）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | 强制刷新（忽略缓存） | |
| platforms | No | 要同步的平台列表（不指定则同步全部） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool crawls/latest asset information, implying network activity, but does not state side effects such as overwriting local cached data, credential requirements, rate-limit impact, or runtime expectations. The term 'sync' suggests a mutating refresh, but the consequences are left unexplained.
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 sentence that is efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical adds useful behavioral color without wasting words. There is no filler or repetition.
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 and no output schema, the description leaves critical operational context unstated: what the tool returns, whether authentication is required for the SRC platform, whether the sync is destructive, and how it relates to sibling asset tools. For a tool that interacts with an external platform, this is too sparse.
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 100% for both parameters (force and platforms). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('sync') and a clear resource ('SRC platform's authorized testing scope'), with a parenthetical clarifying it crawls the latest asset information. This distinguishes it from sibling query tools like search-assets, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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 context is implied rather than stated: 'sync' suggests this should be run to refresh the authorized asset list before other scanning operations. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives like search-assets or check-authorization, and no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.