zap.get_spider_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't cover what the status includes (e.g., progress percentage, completion state, errors), whether it's a read-only operation, potential side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and no complex behavioral nuances to explain.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the status response includes (e.g., JSON structure, key fields like 'progress' or 'state'), nor does it address error cases or dependencies on other tools like 'zap.start_spider'. For a status-checking tool in a security testing context, this leaves critical gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'scanId' clearly documented in the schema as 'Spider scan ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain the scan ID. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a spider scan'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'zap.get_active_scan_status' or 'zap.start_spider', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes a spider scan from other scan types.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a scan ID from 'zap.start_spider'), nor does it clarify the relationship with other status-checking tools like 'zap.get_active_scan_status'. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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