zap_active_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds by stating the tool is intrusive and 'will send potentially malicious payloads'. This is a key behavioral disclosure. It also includes a timeout parameter, giving users control over duration, but does not elaborate on potential side effects or authorization requirements.

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?

Structured with a summary, a warning, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff. The entire description is compact yet informative.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations, the description covers prerequisites, parameters, and return value. It is complete for a single tool, though it could mention how to retrieve full alert details (e.g., using zap_get_alerts). The output schema likely covers the return structure, so this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: url gives target and prerequisite, policy explains default behavior, timeout states units. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 clearly states 'Run an active vulnerability scan using OWASP ZAP' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like zap_spider (passive crawling) and zap_get_alerts (reading results) by explicitly calling it an active scan.

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?

Provides clear context by noting the URL 'should be spidered first', implying a prerequisite step before running the scan. Also warns it is an 'intrusive operation', indicating cautious use. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'spidered first' note effectively points to spidering tools.

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