get_pentest_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Dashboard' and 'report' imply read-only aggregation, and the scoping rules are explained, but it says nothing about permissions, whether results are live or cached, performance, or explicit absence of side effects.

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 structured with a header, numbered instructions, and examples, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is slightly redundant because the title and first sentence repeat the same concept in English and Vietnamese.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description thoroughly covers the two input parameters and scoping combinations. It would be more complete if it explicitly confirmed read-only behavior and aligned the example program_id with the schema enum.

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 must compensate, and it does: it explains program_id as selecting a program-wide aggregation, target_url as an optional single-target filter, and the empty-both case as whole-system aggregation. The only weakness is that the example uses program_id='PROG-DVC-QUANGNINH-2026', which is not among the schema enum values ('' and 'default-program').

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 states a specific resource (Executive Pentest Dashboard) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: vulnerability severity distribution, WSTG checklist completion percentage, and SHA-256 forensic evidence. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which manage programs, run pipelines/tests, inspect findings, or export reports.

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?

It gives explicit scoping guidance: choose program_id to aggregate all assets in a program, optionally use target_url to filter to one target, and leave both empty to aggregate the entire system. Examples illustrate common scenarios, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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